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:
Alicia E. Crouch vs. SCDCA

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Alicia E. Crouch

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
06-ALJ-30-0184-CC

APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner: Pro Se

For Respondent: Charles M. Knight, Esquire
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a contested case brought by Petitioner Alicia E. Crouch challenging the decision of the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs (“Department”) which denied Petitioner’s Originator License for Mortgage Broker Company Originators based on Petitioner’s application and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division’s (“SLED”) criminal records check. A hearing was held before me on May 30, 2006 at the offices of the Administrative Law Court (“ALC” or “Court”) in Columbia, South Carolina.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to Petitioner and Respondent.

2. Petitioner Crouch, in completing her application, Supplemental Form O for an originator’s license, submitted a sworn statement that all information contained in the application is true, current and correct. Petitioner answered “NO” to the question on the form, “Have you ever been convicted of a felony or an offense involving breach of trust, moral turpitude or dishonest dealings within the last ten years?”

3. Petitioner’s arrest record shows four convictions within the last ten years for fraudulent checks. In fact, Petitioner’s arrest record shows that the four convictions for fraudulent checks all occurred within the last five years.

4. Petitioner is embarrassed by the four fraudulent check convictions which occurred as a result of complications during her divorce from her former husband. Petitioner was unaware of the convictions when applying for an Originator’s license. Petitioner believed that all of the charges had been dropped and the matters had been resolved because Petitioner paid restitution and court costs. There were actually seven warrants issued against Petitioner for fraudulent checks. Three charges were dismissed. However, the remaining four resulted in convictions.

5. While this Court is sympathetic with Petitioner, we are bound by the information contained in the SLED Records check.

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. 2005), S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-55(A) (Supp. 2005), and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2005).

2. In presiding over this contested case, this Court serves as the finder of fact and makes a de novo determination regarding the licensing matters at issue. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2005); Marlboro Park Hosp. v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 358 S.C. 573, 577-79, 595 S.E.2d 851, 853-854 (Ct. App. 2004); Brown v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 512, 560 S.E.2d 410, 413 (2002).

3. In order to be licensed as a mortgage loan originator, an applicant must be at least eighteen years of age and must have at least six months of experience in residential mortgage lending or complete eight hours of continuing education within ninety days of employment. S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-50(D) (Supp. 2005). Further, before issuing a license to a mortgage loan originator, the licensing authority must find that the applicant’s “financial responsibility, experience, character, and general fitness…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 [i.e., Chapter 58 of Title 40, which pertains to the licensing of mortgage loan brokers].” S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-60(A) (Supp. 2005). In determining whether an applicant has the requisite character and fitness to be licensed as a mortgage loan originator, the licensing authority may consider such factors as whether the applicant has “(1) violated a provision of this chapter or an order of the [D]epartment; (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; [or] (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.” See S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-55(A).

4. The record shows Petitioner has four convictions for fraudulent checks, which is an offense involving fraud under S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-55(A)(3) (2005). Accordingly, since Petitioner has four convictions within the last ten years for fraudulent checks, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-55 (2005), the Department’s refusal to license Petitioner was proper.

Based on these four convictions, I find that Petitioner does not possess the financial responsibility, experience, character, and general fitness necessary to secure licensure as a mortgage loan originator.

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law state above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs shall DENY Petitioner Crouch’s application for licensure as a mortgage loan originator.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

John D. McLeod

Administrative Law Judge

June 2, 2006

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court