South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
SCDLLR vs. David Spearman

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Manufactured Housing Board

Respondents:
David Spearman

Case No.: 2006-86 (576 Holden Road, Lot 13, Inman, SC)
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
08-ALJ-11-0177-IJ

APPEARANCES:
Joseph N. Connell, Esq.
For Petitioner
 

ORDERS:

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The above-captioned matter, which caption and authority were amended pursuant to petitioning motion, without objection, comes before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) upon a Petition for Injunctive Relief filed by Appellant South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, South Carolina Manufactured Housing Board (Department or Board) on May 21, 2008. In its Petition, the Board seeks an order from this Court permanently enjoining Respondent David Spearman from further engaging in the business of contracting, installing, repairing or modifying manufactured homes in South Carolina until such time Respondent is properly licensed and is in compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations. The Petition also requests that this Court impose an appropriate monetary penalty upon Respondent and provide any other relief this Court deems just and proper. Respondent did not file an Answer to the Board’s Petition. A hearing on the Petition was held on May 21, 2008. Counsel for the Board was present at the hearing; however, Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, despite having been noticed of the hearing. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded in Respondent's absence. Based upon the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing and upon the applicable law, I find that Respondent David Spearman should be permanently enjoined from further violations of the statutory and regulatory provisions pertaining to the contracting, installing, repairing or modifying of manufactured housing in South Carolina.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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.                  Petitioner is an agency of the State of South Carolina vested with the authority to regulate residential building in the State of South Carolina pursuant to S.C. Code of Laws General Statute 40-29-10 et seq. (1976, as amended).

2.                  Respondent is a citizen and resident of South Carolina, and as such, is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction; further, pursuant to SC. Code of Laws, General Statute1-23-630, 40-1-210 and 40-1-100 (1976, as amended) this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action.

3.                  In 2006, Respondent was not licensed or bonded as a Manufactured housing contractor and/or installer to engage in or offer any installing, repairing or modifying of manufactured homes in South Carolina.

4.                  On December 7, 2002, Respondent contracted with Roderick Wharton, to move and install a manufactured home.

5.                  On or about March 7, 2003, the Board issued an Order to Cease and Desist to the Respondent for engaging in or offering to engage in the business of installing, repairing or modifying of manufactured homes in South Carolina as a manufactured homes contractor.

6.                  On or about June 10, 2005, the Board issued an Order to Cease and Desist to the Respondent for engaging in or offering to engage in the business of installing, repairing or modifying of manufactured homes in South Carolina as a manufactured homes contractor.

7.                  On September 15, 2006, Respondent contracted with Quinton Kelly, to move and install a manufactured home.

8.                  Respondent has continued to engage in the unlicensed practice of installing, repairing or modifying of manufactured homes, and therefore, Respondent is in willful violation of S.C. Code Ann. 40-29-30, et. Seq.(Supp 1999).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

1.                  Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 40-29-70 (Supp. 2006) and S.C. Code Ann. § 40-1-100(B) (2001), the Board is authorized to petition an Administrative Law Judge for equitable relief to enjoin violations of the statutes and regulations pertaining to, among other things, the practice of manufactured homes contracting in South Carolina. Further, the Board is authorized to bring an action before this Court for injunctive relief against a person violating an order of the Board. S.C. Code Ann. § 40-1-210 (2001). In such an action, this Court “may impose a fine of no more than ten thousand dollars” for each violation of the Board’s orders. Id. (emphasis added).

2.                  S.C. Code Ann. § 40-29-30(A) (Supp. 2006) provides that: “No manufactured home contractor may install, modify, alter, or repair the structural, mechanical, or electrical systems of a manufactured home without holding a license issued or recognized by the board. No manufactured home installer may install manufactured housing without being licensed by the board. No manufactured home repairer may modify, alter, or repair the structural, mechanical, or electrical systems of a manufactured home without holding a license issued or recognized by the board. The license must authorize the holder to engage in the business permitted by the license. All license applications must be accompanied by the required fee and corporate surety bond or other security in the form as prescribed by the board.” This section further specifies in (B) “A person engaging in or offering to engage in any activity for which a license is required by this chapter without having first obtained the requisite license is subject to an administrative penalty.”

3.                  In the case at hand, the Respondent continued to engage in the manufactured home contracting to install, repair or modify in at least 2 instances. Accordingly, Respondent’s conduct is in direct violation of section 40-29-30(A) and (B).

4.                  An injunction is a proper remedy to prevent the violation of statutes regulating businesses or professions in which a license is required. See S.C. Med. Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass’n v. Froelich, 297 S.C. 400, 377 S.E.2d 306 (1989) (enjoining out-of-state attorney from practicing law in South Carolina without a license); State ex rel. Love v. Howell, 281 S.C. 463, 316 S.E.2d 381 (1984) (enjoining unlicensed individual from practicing architecture until such time as he is licensed by the State Board of Architectural Examiners). Further, any doubt concerning the necessity for an injunction to safeguard the public interest should ordinarily be resolved in favor of the grant of relief. 43A C.J.S. Injunctions § 242 (2004).

ORDER

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, effective immediately, Respondent David Spearman is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from further engaging in conduct that would constitute a violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 40-29-30(A) (Supp. 2006). Specifically, Respondent is permanently enjoined from engaging in or offering to engage in the business of manufactured home contracting in any twelve-month period in this State until he obtains a license from the South Carolina Manufactured Housing Board and is in compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a fine of five hundred dollars ($10,000.00) is imposed upon Respondent for his willful violations of the manufactured housing laws by repeatedly engaging in the practice of mobile home contracting without the requisite license, even after being warned by the Board to refrain from such unlawful activity. The fine imposed upon Respondent shall be collected in the same manner in which the Department normally collects the monetary penalties it imposes.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

JOHN D. MCLEOD

Administrative Law Judge

June 6, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina


~/pdf/080177.pdf
PDF

Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court