ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
This is a contested case brought by Petitioner
Woodrow Anthony Ramsay (“Ramsay” or “Petitioner”) challenging the decision of the South Carolina Department of
Consumer Affairs (“Department”) which denied Petitioner’s renewal application
for an 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 June 20, 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
Ramsay, in completing his 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 “YES” 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 did not show a conviction for a felony or an offense involving
breach of trust, moral turpitude or dishonest dealings within the last ten
years. The Arrest Record provided by SLED and entered as Respondent’s Exhibit
#2 is dated April 8, 2005.
Based
on Petitioner answering “YES” on his Supplemental Form O to the question in
paragraph #2 above, the Department inquired further about Petitioner’s criminal
record. As indicated by Respondent’s Exhibit #3 captioned “United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Judgment in a Criminal Case,” Petitioner
Ramsay pleaded guilty to count 22 of the Second Superseding Indictment on
January 31, 2005.
According to Respondent’s Exhibit #3, Judgment was imposed on Petitioner Ramsay
on May 11, 2005 and therefore would not have appeared on the Arrest Record
dated April 8, 2005.
Petitioner
Ramsay testified that count 22 of the Second Superseding Indictment was “Use of
a Communication Facility to Facilitate a Drug Transaction.” Petitioner’s
Exhibit #1, which includes the Presentence Investigation Report for this United
States District Court, District of South Carolina matter, confirms the count 22
Offense is “Use of a Communication Facility to Facilitate a Drug Transaction”
and classifies it as a Class E Felony.
4. Petitioner
Ramsay’s criminal history, contained in the Petitioner’s Exhibit #1 and
Respondent’s Exhibit #2, indicate Petitioner Ramsay has several convictions for
Public Disorderly Conduct and a Conviction for Driving Under the Influence
within the last five years. Petitioner’s Exhibit #1 also indicates that Petitioner
Ramsay on June 4, 2004, as a condition of his bond in the United States
District Court matter, submitted a urine specimen for drug testing purposes
which proved positive for cocaine. As a result, Petitioner Ramsay was referred
to substance abuse counseling where it was determined he was in need of weekly
treatment sessions. Petitioner Ramsay failed a drug screen administered on
March 21, 2005, testing positive for cocaine.
5. Petitioner
is embarrassed by the felony conviction. Petitioner continued to conduct
business while going through the court system. Petitioner is a talented loan
officer who has provided excellent service. Petitioner is organized and has
many repeat customers. Petitioner is a graduate of the Citadel and served in
the United States Air Force, where he received an honorable discharge.
6. While
this Court is sympathetic with Petitioner, we are bound by the information
contained in the record.
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 Ramsay has a
conviction within the last ten years for “Use of a Communication Facility to
Facilitate a Drug Transaction” which is a Class E felony. See Petitioner’s
Exhibit #1. Accordingly, since Petitioner
Ramsay has a felony conviction within the last ten years, pursuant to
S.C. Code Ann. § 40-58-55 (2005), the Department’s refusal to license
Petitioner was proper.
The
record also shows Petitioner has had several other convictions and has failed
several drug tests that were administered pursuant to his matter in the United
States District Court. While these other convictions and failed drug tests
cannot, alone, justify denying an originator’s license, they do factor into the
consideration of Petitioner Ramsay’s general character and fitness.
Based
on Petitioner Ramsay’s felony conviction, 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 Petitioner Ramsay’s
renewal application for licensure as a mortgage loan originator is DENIED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
John D. McLeod
Administrative
Law Judge
June 22, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina
|
