ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The above-captioned matter comes before this tribunal pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (2000), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2003), and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 & Supp. 2003) for a contested case hearing. Petitioner Nellie H. Roberson
challenges the valuation of her property at 49 Creekside Drive in Bamberg, South Carolina,
identified as tax map number 0086-07-01-011, by Respondent Bamberg County Assessor during
its county-wide reassessment in 2004. By an Order and Notice of Hearing issued on September
22, 2004, this tribunal scheduled a contested case hearing in this matter for Thursday, December
9, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. This hearing notice was timely and properly served upon both parties.
Despite this notice, Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing of this case on
December 9, 2004. Therefore, Petitioner’s challenge to the valuation of her property during the
2004 county-wide reassessment is deemed withdrawn by default and this case is dismissed
pursuant to ALC Rule 23. This rule provides:
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.
ALC Rule 23 (emphasis added). In the case at hand, Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing of
this matter without seeking, or receiving, consent from this tribunal, and is, therefore, in default.
By virtue of her request for a contested case, Petitioner had an obligation to advance her
position. Here, Petitioner received proper notice of the hearing in this case, see Order and
Notice of Hr’g of Sept. 22, 2004,
and did not properly request a continuance of this case or
otherwise receive permission from this tribunal to be excused from the hearing. Nevertheless,
Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing of this case. Accordingly, Petitioner is
deemed to be in default and this case is dismissed. “There is a limit beyond which the court
should not allow a litigant to consume the time of the court . . . .” Georganne Apparel, Inc. v.
Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92, 399 S.E.2d 16, 19 (Ct. App. 1990). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
December 9, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
