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:
Ricky Mitchell vs. SCDCA

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Ricky Mitchell

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
08-ALJ-30-0347-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a contested case brought by Petitioner Ricky Mitchell (Petitioner) challenging the decision of the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs (Department). The Department denied Petitioner’s application for an Originator’s License based on the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division’s criminal records check. After proper notice, a hearing was held before me on November 13, 2008, at the Administrative Law Court (ALC) in Columbia, South Carolina.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and taking into consideration the burden of persuasion and the credibility of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence:

Petitioner submitted an application for an Originator’s License on March 27, 2008, to the Department. In reviewing Petitioner’s application, the Department obtained a copy of Petitioner’s criminal record from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. Petitioner’s record indicated that he pled guilty to assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature for an incident that occurred in May of 2000. Petitioner was working as a DJ at a gentleman’s club when a brawl between patrons, dancers, and other club employees broke out. Specifically, Petitioner was involved in an altercation with a man on the second level of the club which resulted in the man receiving several injuries.

Petitioner does not dispute the fact that he pled guilty to this offense. He further recognizes that what he did was wrong. He currently works as a loan marketer for First Premier Mortgage and holds a part time job at Zaxby’s. He has worked hard to rehabilitate his character. For instance, Petitioner now attends church on a regular basis, is a member of the Greenville Jaycee’s and avoids the use of alcohol. Additionally, Petitioner’s employer at First Premier Mortgage, Erick Guest, testified that Petitioner is of good moral character, is a hard worker, and that he has a genuine passion for helping people.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the above findings of fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this contested case proceeding pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 37-6-414 (Supp. 2007), S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-55(A) (Supp. 2007), and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 20057.

2. An application to become licensed as a mortgage originator must be in writing and made under oath. S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-50 (A) (Supp. 2007). The application must also include an affirmation of the general character and fitness of the applicant including consent to a criminal records check. S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-50 (B)(1) (Supp. 2007). If the Department does not find that the “character, and general fitness of the applicant…are such as to command the confidence of the community and to warrant belief that the business may be operated honestly, fairly, and efficiently according to the purposes of this chapter…it shall refuse to license the applicant and shall notify him of the denial.” S.C. Code Ann § 40-58-60 (A). S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-55 (Supp. 2007) further provides that the Administrative Law Court may review the determination by the Department that the applicant has:

(1) violated a provision of this chapter or an order of the department;

(2) withheld material information in connection with an application for a license or its renewal, or made a material misstatement in connection with the application;

(3) been convicted of a felony or of an offense involving breach of trust, moral turpitude, fraud, or dishonest dealing within the past ten years.

The Department denied Petitioner’s license because he was convicted of a felony and a crime of moral turpitude. ABHAN however is not a felony, but rather a common law misdemeanor. Morris v. State, 371 S.C. 278, 639 S.E.2d 53 (2006). Furthermore, ABHAN does not “invariably constitue a crime of moral turpitude, since that determination depends on the facts of each particular case.” State v. Bailey, 275 S.C. 444, 446, 272 S.E.2d 439, 440 (1980) (per curiam). South Carolina courts have defined moral turpitude as “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between a man and man.” State v. Horton, 271 S.C. 413, 414, 248 S.E.2d 263, 263 (1978). In determining whether a crime is one involving moral turpitude, courts focus primarily on the duty to society and fellow man that is breached by the commission of the crime. Alex Sanders et. al., Trial Handbook for South Carolina Lawyers § 13:13 at 484 (2000). In instances involving a conviction for ABHAN that determination is made by examining “the inherent nature of the crime as defined by law and particularized by the indictment.” 272 S.E.2d at 440.

The statutes governing the licensing of mortgage originators set forth that the character of a broker must be one that commands the “confidence of the community” and warrants the belief that the business will be operated “honestly.” Here, Petitioner explained that he was originally indicted for ABHAN and thus he did not plead guilty to a lesser offense involving more wanton circumstances. It is also pertinent that the indictment for ABHAN was based upon injuries that occurred as a result of a melee that occurred in a bar, rather than facts that suggest a depravity of the private and social duties he owed to his fellow man.[1] There is also no evidence of a dishonest nature.[2] Moreover, this crime occurred more than eight years ago and since that time Petitioner has made significant strides in becoming a person that commands the “confidence of the community.” In light of the above facts, I am persuaded that Petitioner is of sufficient character to receive a mortgage originator license.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s application for an Originator’s License is GRANTED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________

Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

November 20, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina



[1] The indictment was not offered into evidence. Nevertheless, Petitioner testified the above facts without objection. Further, after he presented that evidence the Department did not offer the indictment into the record.

[2] There is also no evidence that Petitioner misled the Department in this matter.


~/pdf/080347.pdf
PDF

Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court