ORDERS:
ORDER
This
matter was before the Court on November 9, 2005 pursuant to the Petitioner’s
Motion to Enforce Settlement. Present at the hearing were Jeffrey A. Jacobs,
Chief Legal Counsel for Petitioner, Walter M. White, attorney for Respondent,
and Respondent. At the outset of the hearing the Court had before it
Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Respondents’ Return to the Motion
to Enforce Settlement.
The
issue concerns enforcement of a one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) fine
agreed to by Petitioner, Respondent, and Respondent’s attorney in a Consent
Order of Settlement, dated September 30, 2004, which was signed by the Court.
Petitioner seeks an Order from this Court requiring Respondent to pay the fine
described in the Consent Order of Settlement. The Consent Order of Settlement
provides in relevant part:
That
the resident insurance agent license of the Respondent, William M. Worthy II,
is suspended subject to the payment of an administrative fine against the
Respondent in the total amount of one hundred thousand ($100,000.00). Upon
payment of the one hundred thousand dollar fine ($100,000.00), the Respondent’s
resident insurance agent license will be reinstated on a probationary basis for
two (2) years.
Petitioner
interprets this provision to require the payment of the fine and contends
Respondent has violated the terms of the Consent Order of Settlement by failing
to do so. Respondent admits that he has not paid the fine, but maintains that
there is no requirement that the fine be paid. Rather, Respondent argues
that his resident insurance agent license will remain suspended until he pays
the fine.
The
Court, in reaching its decision, has considered the pleadings filed by the
parties, the Consent Order of Settlement, the exhibits introduced during the
hearing, the case law handed up by the parties, and the arguments of counsel.
This Court recognizes that it has the authority to interpret and enforce the
Consent Order of Settlement. However, it is the Court’s obligation to
ascertain the intentions of the parties in construing the Consent Order of
Settlement. In doing so, I find that the language of the Consent Order of
Settlement is unambiguous and that the intentions of the parties are clear.
Petitioner
and Respondent were quite familiar with the facts of this case as evidenced by
the stipulations in the Consent Order of Settlement. The Consent Order of
Settlement is clear and the parties entered into it freely and voluntarily.
The clear intent of the Consent Order of Settlement is that Respondent’s
resident insurance agent license is and will remain suspended until he pays an
administrative fine in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00)
to Petitioner, and that upon that payment of the fine Respondent’s resident
insurance agent license will be reinstated on a probationary basis for two (2)
years. There is simply no requirement that Respondent pay the fine of
one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) unless and until he seeks to have
his license reinstated, and this Court is unwilling to insert such a
requirement into the Consent Order of Settlement as Petitioner requests.
Therefore,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________ Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief
Administrative Law Judge
December 8, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
