ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This
matter comes before the Administrative Law Court pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§
1‑23‑310 et seq. (1986 & Supp. 2005) and S.C. Code Ann. §
40-58-55 (Supp. 2005) for a contested case hearing. The Petitioner, Joshua
Collins, sought a contested case hearing following the Department of Consumer
Affairs’ denial of his application for an Originator License for Mortgage
Broker Company Originators. The Department denied the application because the
Petitioner has been convicted of numerous crimes, and because he was not
truthful on his application for an originator’s license. After proper notice
to the parties, a hearing was held on May 4, 2006 at the Court in Columbia,
South Carolina. Counsel for the Respondent was present at the hearing as
noted. After waiting approximately fifteen (15) minutes for the Petitioner to
appear, the Court commenced this hearing and finds that the Respondent’s
decision to deny the Petitioner’s application for an originator’s license
should be upheld.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Having carefully
considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearing of
this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the
evidence, I make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1. Notice of
the time, date and place of hearing was provided to all parties as required by
ALC Rule 15.
2. At the call
of the case, Respondent’s counsel was present, but the Petitioner was not.
3. The
Respondent introduced the Petitioner’s application which was filed November 8,
2005. On this application, the Petitioner checked “No” in response to question
1 which asks, “Have you ever been convicted of a felony or of an offense
involving breach of trust, moral turpitude or dishonest dealings within the
past ten years?”
4. The Respondent
also introduced the arrest record provided by South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division which showed that the Petitioner had been convicted of a second
offense of driving under suspension in September 1996, as well as giving false
information to a police office and drinking alcohol in public in November
1996. In December 1996, the Petitioner was convicted of resisting arrest, and
in February 1999, the Petitioner was arrested for possession of crack cocaine.
This charge was nolle prossed.
5. Under the
terms of S.C. Code Ann. §40-58-55 (A) the Department may deny an originator’s
license when it appears that the originator has been convicted of a felony or a
crime of moral turpitude, or if the applicant has made a material misstatement
in connection with the application. I find that the Department has shown that
the Petitioner has been convicted of several crimes involving breach of trust,
moral turpitude or dishonest dealings and that he did not truthfully complete
his application.
6. In addition,
under SC ALC Rule 23,
The
administrative law judge may dismiss a contested case or dispose of a contested
case adverse to the defaulting party. A default occurs when a party fails to
plead or otherwise prosecute or defend, fails to appear at a hearing without
the proper consent of the judge or fails to comply with any interlocutory
order of the administrative law judge. Any non‑defaulting party may move
for an order dismissing the case or terminating it adversely to the defaulting
party. (Emphasis added.)
I find that the
Petitioner has defaulted in this matter, and that the Department is entitled to
the relief sought.
THEREFORE, IT IS
ORDERED, that the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs’ decision
to deny the Petitioner’s originator’s license for mortgage broker company
originators due to his convictions for crimes involving breach of trust, moral
turpitude or dishonest dealings is upheld, and the Petitioner’s license is
denied.
AND IT IS SO
ORDERED.
___________________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
May 19, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |