SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

Appellant Alonzo M. Jackson, d/b/a Dealer Auctions, Inc. (Dealer Auctions) seeks an order amending this court's order of June 11, 2008. The June 11 order affirmed in part and reversed in part an order of the South Carolina Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings (DMVH). The DMVH order had denied Dealer Auctions' motion to amend a Final Order and Decision affirming the rejection by the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) of Dealer Auctions' application for a wholesale auction license.

The DMVH denied Dealer Auctions' motion to amend on the ground that the issues presented in that motion were not properly before the DMVH. On appeal to this court, Dealer Auctions claimed that the hearing officer erred in so ruling. In its June 11 order, this court concluded that the hearing officer properly declined to rule on the issue of whether the Department may revoke or suspend a dealer's license if the dealer provides its location for a multiple-seller auction. This court also concluded that the hearing officer erred in declining to rule on the issue of whether Dealer Auctions may provide auction services for multiple sellers without a license when the auctions occur at the location of one of those sellers. This court remanded the case to the DMVH for a decision on the following questions: (1) whether Dealer Auctions needs a wholesale license to provide auction services for multiple sellers at the location of one of those sellers; and (2) if so, whether the Department properly rejected Dealer Auctions' license application on the ground that the applicant was without an “established place of business” from which to operate.

In its petition for rehearing, Dealer Auctions claims that the dealer license issue should also be remanded to the DMVH. Dealer Auctions argues that it has a statutory right and a constitutional right to be heard by the DMVH on the dealer license issue. I disagree.

Dealer Auctions cites S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-10(23) as authority for the proposition that it has a statutory right to a DMVH hearing on the dealer license issue. However, section 56-1-10 does not create any right to a hearing before the DMVH. Rather, the provision merely defines the function of DMVH in terms of conducting "hearings or administrative hearings arising from department actions." That general provision does not dictate whether a particular hearing may "arise from" an action of the Department. Rather, such a determination is based on whether a statutory or constitutional provision specifically confers on a person the right to a hearing in a certain type of case. Dealer Auctions has cited no statutory provision that does so.

Further, because there has not yet been a revocation or suspension of Beach Ford’s dealer license, there is no actual agency decision on that issue that could be the subject of a contested case, as defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310(3). Section 1-23-310(3) defines a "contested case" as a proceeding in which legal rights, duties, or privileges of party are required by law to be determined by administrative agency after opportunity for hearing. While the phrase "required by law" may contemplate constitutional law in addition to statutory law, the South Carolina Constitution does not confer on Dealer Auctions a right to a DMVH hearing on the dealer license issue.

Article I, section 22 of the South Carolina Constitution states “[n]o person shall be finally bound by a judicial or quasi‑judicial decision of an administrative agency affecting private rights except on due notice and an opportunity to be heard.” In the instant case, no one is “finally bound” by the Department's informal communication of its interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-330 (2006) as prohibiting Beach Ford from allowing multiple-seller auctions at its dealership location. Only after the Department has made an official decision on its interpretation, such as in a disciplinary action, or has taken some other adverse action against a dealer based on its interpretation, may an aggrieved party have “an opportunity to be heard” by the DMVH concerning the Department's interpretation. Cf. Rogers v. SC Dep't of Health and Environmental Control, 01-ALJ-07-0402-CC, 2001 WL 1397451 (Admin. Law Ct., October 23, 2001) (holding that contested case hearing to challenge DHEC decision on conceptual dock master plan was not required by the South Carolina Constitution because decision was merely advisory to permitting staff and thus no one was finally bound by decision and concluding that when dock permit itself is either granted or denied based upon conceptual dock master plan then that plan can be challenged in contested case hearing on permit decision).

Based on the foregoing, the legality of a revocation or suspension of Beach Ford’s license for allowing vehicles of other dealers to be auctioned on its property is not within the scope of the instant case.

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Dealer Auctions' petition for rehearing is DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge

July 15, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina