ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §61-2-260 (Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq.
(Supp. 2000) upon filing of applications by Petitioner, Lois J. Hall, d/b/a Grace's Place, ("Petitioner") for a retail liquor
license , an on-premise beer and wine permit, and a sale and consumption ("mini-bottle") license for a location at 155A and
155B Bettis Academy Road, Graniteville, South Carolina. Upon receipt of a written protest to the application, the South
Carolina Department of Revenue ("Department") transmitted the case to the Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD")
for a hearing. After timely notice to the parties and Protestant, a contested case hearing was held on November 14, 2001, at
the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina. Testifying on behalf of the Protestant were John C. Harrington, Willa Harrington,
Carolyn Richardson, and Richard Courtney. Lois J. Hall is the owner/operator of Grace's Place. Hall testified in support
of the applications. Upon review of the relevant and probative evidence and applicable law, the applications for a retail
liquor license, an on-premise beer and wine permit, and a sale and consumption ("mini-bottle") license are granted
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into account the
credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
- Notice of the time, date and place of the hearing was given to the Petitioner,
Protestant, and Department.
2. Lois J. Hall, on behalf of Grace's Place, seeks a retail liquor license, an on-premise beer and wine permit, and a sale
and consumption ("mini-bottle") license for the proposed location of 155A and 155B Bettis Academy Road, Graniteville,
South Carolina.
3. The Department moved to be excused from appearing at the hearing on the
ground that it would have granted the permit and licenses but for the protest of John C. Harrington, who called into
question the character of the Petitioner. Said motion was granted.
4. Grace's Place is a combined location that houses four different businesses: a convenience store, a restaurant, a bar
and a liquor store. The convenience store and restaurant are open from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
The bar operates from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Wednesday, 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Thursday and Friday,
and 3:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Saturday.
5. John C. Harrington, owner of Harrington Industries, located at 10 Forward Court, Aiken, South Carolina, is a
resident of Wisconsin. (1) Harrington testified in opposition of the issuance of the licenses and permit. Harrington testified
that he was in possession of documents that suggested that Hall was not capable as a fiduciary. Hall is a former employee
of Harrington Industries, and was responsible for the filing of state and federal withholding taxes, as well as depositing
withheld contributions to a company 401k plan. Harrington stated that Hall repeatedly failed to timely file taxes and 401k
contributions and that those failures went undetected by other corporate officers for over two years.
7. Carolyn Richardson, an employee of Harrington Industries, testified that Hall told her not to inform Harrington that
IRS agents had been on the property. Richardson also testified that Hall instructed her to withhold payments to suppliers
by telling them that the check was in the mail.
8. Richard Courtney, an employee of Harrington Industries, testified that, prior to Hall's employment with Harrington,
taxes and insurance premiums were not being paid. Courtney then testified that after Hall's arrival, taxes, insurance
premiums, and 401k deposits were paid.
9. Willa Harrington, wife of Protestant John Harrington, testified that she was aware of 401k contributions being
withheld from employee paychecks and not being paid. Willa Harrington testified that once an employee saw that the
contributions were not being made, the 401k plan had to be reimbursed.
10. Lois J. Hall, the owner/operator of testified that it was true that tax payments were late because she and her
secretary had trouble electronically filing those taxes. They had no problems when they hand-carried the payments to the
bank. Hall testified that the Harringtons brought her down from Wisconsin to work at Harrington Industries as a secretary.
Once she got to Harrington Industries, the Harringtons gave her more and more responsibility until she was running the
company by 1997. It was extremely difficult to run the company, what with FAA and EPA rules. Hall then discovered that
DHEC was investigating the Harringtons and had been for over a year. With regard to the 401k, Hall offered to make the
contributions out of her mutual funds. There was no money in the business. At one point, Hall gave $5000 of her own
money to make payroll. Instead of paying her back, Hall testified that the Harringtons made her President and CEO of the
business and gave her stock. Finally, Hall testified that, when she told the Harringtons that it was a tough job for which she
had no experience, she was told to hire a secretary. But there was no money.
11. Though the evidence offered raises concerns that Hall had difficulty running an aircraft refurbishing business, the
evidence fails to show that Petitioner's moral character is lacking.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2000) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested
cases under the Administrative Procedures Act. Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2000) grants the Division
the responsibilities to determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2000), which sets forth the requirements for the issuance of a beer and wine permit,
provides, in relevant part:
No permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine may be issued unless:
1) The applicant, any partner of co-shareholder of the applicant, and each agent, employee and servant of the applicant to be
employed on the licensed premises, are of good moral character.
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-110, et seq. (Supp. 2000) sets forth the requirements for
determining eligibility for a retail liquor license. It provides that no license will be issued to a person who "is not of good
repute." S.C. Code § 61-6-110(3).
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-820, et seq. (Supp. 2000) sets forth the requirements for determining eligibility for a mini-bottle license. It provides that the Department may issue a license upon finding that "the applicant, if an individual, is of
good moral character." S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-820(2).
5. The factual determination of whether or not an application is granted or denied is usually the sole prerogative of the
executive agency charged with rendering that decision. Palmer v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct.
App. 1984). As the trier of fact, an administrative law judge is authorized to determine the fitness of an Applicant for
alcohol permits and licenses using broad but not unbridled discretion. Ronald F. Byers v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 281 S.C.
566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). It is also the fact finder's responsibility to judge the demeanor and credibility of
witnesses and determine the relevance and weight of any testimony and evidence offered.
6. Permits and licenses issued by the State for the sale of liquor, beer and wine are not rights or property, but are rather
privileges granted in the exercise of the police power of the State, to be used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions
and conditions governing them are complied with. As the tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a permit is also
authorized, for cause, to revoke it, that tribunal is likewise authorized to place restrictions or conditions on the permit. See
Feldman v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).
7. A violation of any regulation or section of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act is punishable by revocation or suspension
of the permit pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-4-580, 61-6-100, and 61-6-1830 (Supp. 2000).
8. Although the testimony given in support of the Protestant revealed that Hall failed to timely file taxes and deposit 401k
contributions, the Protestant provided no evidence that the moral character of the Petioner was in any way lacking.
Therefore, I conclude that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof in showing that it meets all of the statutory
requirements for holding a retail liquor license, a mini-bottle license, and an on-premises beer and wine permit at the
proposed location.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's applications for a retail liquor license, a sale and consumption ("mini-bottle") license, and an on-premises beer and wine permit for its location at 155A and 155B Bettis Academy Road,
Graniteville, South Carolina, is granted upon payment of all fees and statutory requirements.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
November 16, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
1. Although Petitioner challenged Harrington's ability to protest the issuance of the permit and licenses in a letter received
by the Division, Petitioner failed to challenge Harrington's residency during the hearing. Because Petitioner's applications
are granted, I decline to address the propriety of Harrington's protest. |
