I. Introduction
The State Ethics Commission (Commission) utilized the Setoff Debt Collection Act to
collect debts allegedly owed to the Commission by Grady Butler (Butler). Butler
disagreed with the Commission’s collection action and by a letter received by the
Commission on November 8, 2004, asked for a hearing before a Commission hearing
officer. The request was granted via a hearing held on January 5, 2005.
Following the hearing, the hearing officer issued a letter to Butler dated January 11,
2005, informing him that “[t]the amount of the debt originally submitted through the
Debt Setoff Collection Act is correct and is rightly due.” Butler disagreed with the
hearing officer’s conclusion and on March 9, 2005 challenged the hearing officer’s
decision by filing with the Administrative Law Court (ALC) a request for a contested
case hearing.
The matter now before the court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Commission on
April 8, 2005, in which it argues that Butler’s request for a contested case was too late
and thus deprives the ALC of jurisdiction to hear this matter. Butler filed no response to
the motion.
II. Analysis
The motion must be granted. Under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-56-65(C) “[a] debtor may seek
relief from the hearing officer's determination by requesting, within thirty days of the
determination, a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law [Court].” The
importance of a timely filing cannot be overstated since a late filing is fatal to the
jurisdiction of the adjudicating body. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206
(1985), Burnett v. S. C. Highway Dept, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969), Stroup v.
Duke Power Co, 216 S.C. 79, 56 S.E.2d 745 (1949). Thus, if Butler did not timely file a
request for a contested case, the ALC has no jurisdiction to provide any relief.
Under the facts of this case, the hearing officer issued a letter to Butler dated January 11,
2005, informing Butler that the setoff was proper. Butler did not file a request for a
contested case hearing with the ALC until March 9, 2005. Such a filing is well beyond
the thirty days allowed by the statute.
Accordingly, given the demands of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-56-65(C), Butler’s request for a
contested case hearing was untimely and deprives the ALC of jurisdiction. Therefore,
the Motion to Dismiss is granted and this matter is ended.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED
_________________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: May 19 , 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
