South Carolina CL-100 Findings: Moisture, Wood Damage, and Repair Documentation Before Closing

South Carolina CL-100 inspection findings should be treated as documented conditions requiring organized follow-up, not as a simple pass-or-fail result. When a report identifies moisture, wood damage, an infestation, or inaccessible areas, the buyer’s agent must help determine which question comes next: pest treatment, moisture-source evaluation, building repair, lender documentation, or additional professional review.

The practical objective is a complete transaction file. That file should preserve the original CL-100, explain each reported condition, identify the professional responsible for the next answer, and include completion documents that describe the work performed. The objective is not to obtain an unsupported “clear termite letter.”

Agent takeaway

• A South Carolina CL-100 is a regulated Wood Infestation Report, not a structural certification or warranty.
• The current report should be issued on the current Clemson-prescribed form by the appropriate Category 7A licensee.
• Moisture, pest activity, and building damage should be tracked as separate but potentially related workstreams.
• The home inspection and CL-100 may have different scopes. Differences should be reconciled, not erased.
• Treatment records do not automatically prove that damaged wood was repaired.
• A contractor invoice should describe the work performed rather than merely state “CL-100 repairs.”
• The lender, closing attorney, executed agreement, and relevant professionals determine the documentation needed for the transaction.
• The final file should preserve both the original finding and the evidence of follow-up.

1. Read the CL-100 as a report of findings

A South Carolina CL-100 is an official Wood Infestation Report used to document visible and accessible conditions associated with wood-destroying organisms. It is administered through Clemson University’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and governed by S.C. Code Regs. § 27-1085.

The report should be understood as a time-specific record of observations within a defined inspection scope.

What the South Carolina CL-100 is

Under the regulation, a CL-100 issued in connection with a sale or mortgage must be:

• Completed on the most current Official South Carolina Wood Infestation Report form.
• Issued by an individual currently licensed in Category 7A.
• Covered by a valid pest-control business license.
• Signed by the licensed individual.
• Identified with the applicable applicator and business license numbers.
• Valid for 30 days from the inspection date, as stated on the form.

The inspection must include a visual examination of accessible interior and exterior portions of the structure. That scope includes accessible crawlspaces, utility areas, and attics. Where visible damage is present, the inspection requires sounding and probing.

The report also requires representative wood-moisture readings in accessible portions of the crawlspace. It must address visible and accessible wood-destroying insect infestations, related damage, wood-decay fungi, decay damage, excessive moisture conditions, and inaccessible areas.

The decay-related portion of the inspection is limited to the area below the first main living-area floor. Insect-related damage must be reported where visible and accessible. The form should identify the location and approximate extent of reported conditions and explain the basis for determining whether an infestation is active.

The current Clemson Department of Pesticide Regulation resources and the current form and Bulletin 16 should be confirmed whenever a transaction file is reviewed. Forms and administrative guidance can change.

What the South Carolina CL-100 is not

A CL-100 is not:

• A structural damage report.
• A structural engineering evaluation.
• A building-code certification.
• A warranty against future infestation.
• A guarantee that concealed conditions do not exist.
• A promise that all reported damage has been repaired.
• A universal clearance for every part of the property.
• A contractor quote or binding repair proposal.

The report’s purpose is to document findings within its scope. Clemson’s Bulletin 16, Understanding Your Wood Infestation Report, specifically cautions that the Wood Infestation Report should not be treated as a guarantee or as a substitute for a qualified building professional when the extent of damage must be evaluated.

Importantly, South Carolina agents should not import a guarantee term from another state’s practice. The CL-100’s 30-day validity is different from a promise that a property will remain free of future activity.

2. Keep moisture and pest findings separate

A CL-100 may place moisture and wood-destroying organisms on the same report, but that does not mean they are the same issue.

A moisture observation may relate to:

• Plumbing leakage.
• Drainage or groundwater entry.
• Condensation.
• Crawlspace conditions.
• Inadequate access or ventilation.
• A prior repair.
• A source that has not yet been identified.

A pest finding may relate to:

• Active infestation.
• Previous infestation.
• Visible insect-related damage.
• Treatment history.
• Conditions that support future activity.
• Damage that requires building evaluation.

The agent should organize these into distinct questions.

Question 1: What pest condition was reported?

The relevant professional should clarify:

• What organism or evidence was identified.
• Whether the report describes active or previous activity.
• Where the finding is located.
• Whether treatment is recommended.
• Whether treatment records already exist.
• Whether inaccessible areas limit the conclusion.

Question 2: What moisture condition was reported?

The relevant professional should clarify:

• Where moisture readings or observations were made.
• Whether standing water or another condition was observed.
• Whether the source is known.
• Whether plumbing, drainage, grading, or another building condition requires follow-up.
• Whether the moisture condition remains present after proposed work.

Question 3: What physical damage was reported?

A qualified building professional should clarify:

• Which wood components are damaged.
• Whether the damage is limited or widespread.
• Whether concealed damage is possible.
• Whether repair, replacement, or additional evaluation is appropriate.
• Whether access or demolition is needed to define the scope.

One treatment may address an insect condition without correcting a plumbing leak. A plumbing repair may stop a moisture source without replacing decayed wood. A carpentry repair may replace damaged material without addressing the condition that caused it.

In other words, the agent should not combine three unresolved questions into one request for “CL-100 repairs.”

3. Reconcile the CL-100 and home inspection

The CL-100 and the general home inspection may examine overlapping locations, but they do not serve identical purposes.

The home inspection may identify:

• A plumbing concern.
• Crawlspace moisture.
• Damaged or deteriorated wood.
• Limited access.
• A recommendation for pest or building evaluation.

The CL-100 may provide more focused information about:

• Visible wood-destroying insect evidence.
• Previous infestation.
• Visible insect-related damage.
• Moisture readings in the substructure.
• Decay conditions within its defined scope.
• Inaccessible areas relevant to the pest inspection.

Build a location-matching list

Compare both reports by location rather than by conclusion.

Location	Home inspection observation	CL-100 observation	Remaining question
Crawlspace beneath kitchen	Plumbing concern noted	Moisture condition noted	Is the plumbing concern the source, or is another evaluation needed?
Rear sill or support area	Deteriorated wood described	Insect-related damage reported	What is the repair scope, and who should define it?
Attic access	Limited visibility	Area identified as inaccessible	What remains unknown, and is further access appropriate?

A difference between the reports does not automatically mean that one professional is incorrect. The reports may reflect:

• Different inspection dates.
• Different access conditions.
• Different instruments.
• Different professional scopes.
• Different reporting standards.
• Different portions of the structure.

Preserve those differences in the file. Do not rewrite one report to match the other.

Track limitations explicitly

The file should identify:

• Which areas were inaccessible.
• Whether stored materials blocked access.
• Whether the crawlspace or attic could be fully viewed.
• Whether a component was concealed.
• Whether a specialist was recommended but not yet engaged.
• Whether records were missing.

An inaccessible area does not establish that damage exists. It establishes that the available report cannot answer the question for that area.

For the broader transaction workflow, agents can use the South Carolina Home Inspection Response Guide to organize report references, specialist follow-up, contract timing, and client decisions.

4. Define the work of each professional

A complete file depends on assigning each question to the appropriate professional. The agent coordinates the workflow but should not provide a pest-control, engineering, building, legal, or brokerage conclusion.

Pest treatment

A qualified pest professional may address:

• The reported organism.
• Whether activity appears active.
• Appropriate treatment options.
• Treatment access.
• Treatment records.
• Service agreements or warranties.
• Follow-up pest-control documentation.

Treatment is directed at the pest condition. It does not necessarily include replacement of damaged wood, correction of a plumbing source, or restoration of finishes.

Moisture-source correction

A plumbing professional, drainage professional, or other qualified specialist may be needed to identify and correct the moisture source.

The appropriate provider may need to evaluate:

• Leaking supply or drain components.
• Water entry.
• Drainage conditions.
• Crawlspace conditions.
• A previous repair.
• The relationship between the reported moisture and another system.

The agent should not assume that the moisture source is obvious because the CL-100 and home inspection identify the same general area.

Building repair

A qualified building professional should define the repair scope when damaged wood requires further evaluation. Depending on the finding, the appropriate professional may include a contractor, carpenter, structural specialist, or engineer.

The relevant question is not simply, “Can someone fix the CL-100 item?” It is:

• What material is damaged?
• What access is required?
• Is the component structural?
• Does the damage extend beyond the visible area?
• Is replacement or reinforcement appropriate?
• What restoration is needed after the work?

A pest operator’s CL-100 should not be treated as structural certification. Conversely, a contractor invoice should not be treated as proof that the pest condition was treated unless it describes that work.

5. Compare proposals and completion evidence

The agent should compare scope before dollars. A planning estimate may help frame a client conversation, but it should not replace a current property-specific written proposal.

The file should distinguish among:

1. Pest treatment records.
2. Physical repair invoices.
3. Moisture-source correction records.
4. Specialist evaluations.
5. Photographs or access documentation.
6. Follow-up inspections required by the transaction.
7. Warranty or service-agreement documents.

What a useful proposal should identify

Depending on the work, the proposal should describe:

• The property and affected location.
• The reported condition.
• The proposed work.
• Access requirements.
• Demolition or opening of concealed areas.
• Materials to be removed.
• Replacement materials.
• Disposal.
• Restoration.
• Excluded work.
• Assumptions.
• Follow-up or monitoring.
• Documentation to be supplied after completion.

“CL-100 repairs” is not a sufficient scope by itself. An invoice should state what was actually performed.

For example, a pest invoice may describe treatment of a specified area. A plumbing invoice may describe replacement of a leaking component. A building invoice may describe removal and replacement of damaged wood. These documents should remain separate if they represent separate workstreams.

Use cost context carefully

PropWise can help agents organize localized repair-cost context for a buyer conversation. That context is not an exact quote, a guarantee, or a substitute for a contractor’s property-specific proposal.

Figures should be compared only when the scope is reasonably comparable. Otherwise, compare the work without presenting different dollar amounts as equivalent alternatives.

A lower proposal may exclude:

• Access work.
• Demolition.
• Disposal.
• Concealed damage.
• Replacement material.
• Painting or finish restoration.
• Follow-up inspections.
• Moisture-source correction.
• Permit-related work, where applicable.

The transaction file should make those differences visible.

6. Confirm the actual closing requirements

The CL-100 may be relevant to the buyer, seller, lender, closing attorney, and transaction agreement. Those parties may not require the same document for the same reason.

The agent should coordinate with:

• The buyer’s lender.
• The closing attorney.
• The appropriate pest professional.
• The building or repair professional.
• The responsible broker.
• The parties to the executed agreement.

Confirm the document, date, and scope

The transaction team should verify:

• Which CL-100 version is required.
• Whether the report is within the stated 30-day validity period.
• Whether the lender requires additional treatment or repair documentation.
• Whether a follow-up inspection is required in this transaction.
• Whether the closing attorney needs invoices, warranties, or other records.
• Whether the executed agreement specifies who must complete or document the work.
• Whether the proposed completion evidence matches the negotiated scope.

There is no universal rule that assigns every CL-100 expense to the buyer or seller. There is no universal rule that requires a reinspection in every situation. There is also no blanket statement that every financed South Carolina sale requires a CL-100 under the same terms.

Payment responsibilities, repair obligations, lender conditions, and closing documentation should be confirmed for the specific transaction. Agents should not infer contractual obligations from the report alone.

Avoid unsupported closing language

The following statements are too broad without transaction-specific confirmation:

• “The seller must pay for the CL-100.”
• “The buyer must order the report.”
• “The lender will accept any pest letter.”
• “A treatment invoice automatically clears the report.”
• “A reinspection is always mandatory.”
• “The transaction cannot close until the CL-100 is clear.”

A more accurate approach is to identify the condition, document the agreed response, and confirm the required evidence with the responsible party.

7. Demonstrate a complete follow-up file

A complete CL-100 follow-up file preserves the original history while showing what happened next. It should not ask a provider to erase or rewrite previously reported damage merely because treatment or repair occurred.

The three-workstream file

Workstream	Report evidence	Qualified professional	Proposed work	Completion document	Remaining question
Pest findings	CL-100 identifies active or previous infestation, insect-related damage, or treatment history at a stated location	Category 7A pest professional or other appropriate licensed provider	Treatment, monitoring, documentation of prior treatment, or additional pest evaluation	Detailed treatment invoice, treatment record, service agreement, warranty, or follow-up pest documentation	Does the evidence address the reported pest condition and any required transaction documentation?
Moisture source	CL-100 reports moisture observations or readings; home inspection identifies a possible plumbing, drainage, or water-entry concern	Plumber, drainage professional, or other qualified moisture-source professional	Identify and correct the source; document exclusions and areas not evaluated	Itemized invoice, written evaluation, photographs, or other property-specific completion record	Has the source been identified, and does moisture-related follow-up remain necessary?
Building damage	CL-100 or home inspection identifies damaged, deteriorated, or concealed wood requiring further evaluation	Qualified building professional, contractor, carpenter, or structural specialist as appropriate	Open access if needed, repair or replace affected material, restore finishes, or recommend further evaluation	Detailed repair invoice, specialist report, photographs, permits or approvals where applicable, and warranty documents	Was the full repair scope addressed, including concealed damage, access, disposal, and restoration?

This table is a workflow tool. It does not determine which professional is legally required or guarantee that a proposed remedy is adequate.

What the file should contain

A well-organized file may include:

• Original CL-100.
• Any addenda or explanatory pages.
• Current report date and validity check.
• General home inspection excerpts.
• Photographs tied to locations.
• Prior treatment records.
• Moisture-source evaluation.
• Pest treatment proposal or invoice.
• Building repair proposal or invoice.
• Specialist reports.
• Access or demolition records.
• Completion photographs.
• Warranties or service agreements.
• Lender instructions.
• Closing attorney instructions.
• Executed repair agreement or amendment.
• Final status of each workstream.

The goal is traceability. A later document should add information without silently replacing the original finding.

Invented teaching scenario: Charleston-area crawlspace

The following is an invented teaching scenario, not a customer story.

A Charleston-area home has a crawlspace. The CL-100 notes a moisture observation and damaged wood requiring further evaluation. The general home inspection also notes a plumbing concern near the same part of the house.

A weak workflow would ask one pest company to “clear the termite issue,” assume the plumbing concern caused the moisture, and accept a general invoice labeled “CL-100 repairs.”

A stronger workflow would separate the questions.

Pest question

The agent asks the Category 7A pest professional to clarify:

• Whether the CL-100 identifies active or previous infestation.
• What insect-related evidence was observed.
• Whether treatment is recommended.
• Whether any areas were inaccessible.
• What treatment record will be provided if work is performed.

Plumbing question

The agent coordinates a plumbing evaluation to determine:

• Whether a plumbing defect is present.
• Whether the reported plumbing condition could be related to the moisture observation.
• What portion of the plumbing system was evaluated.
• What work, if any, was performed.
• What documentation will describe that work.

The agent does not state that the plumber has diagnosed the crawlspace condition until the plumber provides that conclusion.

Building question

The agent coordinates a building professional to evaluate:

• The location and extent of damaged wood.
• Whether access or removal is needed.
• Whether structural significance can be determined.
• What repair or replacement is proposed.
• Whether restoration is included.

The agent does not ask the pest operator to certify the framing or ask the plumber to define the wood-repair scope.

File result

The completed file may contain:

• The original CL-100 with moisture and damaged-wood observations preserved.
• A pest treatment record, if treatment was performed.
• A plumbing evaluation or invoice describing the actual plumbing work.
• A building professional’s evaluation or repair invoice.
• Photographs showing the affected location and completed work.
• Any lender or closing-attorney request for additional documentation.
• A remaining-question list for anything not fully resolved.

The appropriate outcome is a documented chain of evidence. It is not necessarily a new document claiming that the property is universally “clear.”

Preserve the history

A provider should not be asked to delete previously reported damage or rewrite a report to make the transaction appear simpler. If a condition was reported, preserve the report and attach the follow-up evidence.

That approach protects the accuracy of the file and gives the buyer, lender, and closing team a clearer understanding of:

• What was observed.
• What was inaccessible.
• What was treated.
• What was repaired.
• What remains uncertain.
• Who made each professional determination.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a CL-100 a guarantee that the home is termite-free?

No. A CL-100 reports visible and accessible findings at the time of inspection. It is not a warranty against future infestation and does not eliminate the possibility of concealed conditions or inaccessible areas.

Does pest treatment also repair damaged framing?

Not necessarily. Pest treatment addresses the pest condition. Damaged framing or other building components may require evaluation and repair by a qualified building professional. Treatment and physical repair should be documented as separate scopes when different work is performed.

Who should evaluate the extent of reported wood damage?

A qualified building professional should evaluate the extent of reported wood damage. Depending on the location and question, that may include an appropriately qualified contractor, carpenter, structural specialist, or engineer. A CL-100 should not be treated as a structural evaluation.

What paperwork helps document completed CL-100-related work?

Useful documentation may include the original CL-100, a detailed pest-treatment record, a moisture-source evaluation, an itemized repair invoice, photographs, warranties, service agreements, permits or approvals where applicable, and any follow-up report required by the lender, closing attorney, or executed agreement. Each document should describe the work actually performed.

Build the complete file before closing

South Carolina CL-100 inspection findings require organization because they can involve several professionals, overlapping reports, limited access, lender requirements, and short closing timelines.

The practical sequence is:

1. Read the CL-100 as a report of findings.
2. Separate pest, moisture, and building questions.
3. Match locations across the CL-100 and home inspection.
4. Assign each question to the appropriate professional.
5. Compare scopes before comparing prices.
6. Confirm the actual closing requirements.
7. Preserve the original report and attach complete follow-up documentation.

PropWise supports structured inspection intelligence, defect organization, localized repair-cost context, vendor pathways, and negotiation preparation. The agent and client make the decisions, while licensed and qualified professionals address technical questions.

Bring separate inspection findings and follow-up documents into one clearer workflow. See how PropWise helps agents prepare for the buyer conversation.