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

Marie Funchess, d/b/a Whitmore Grocery vs. SCDOR

South Carolina Department of Revenue

Marie Funchess, d/b/a Whitmore Grocery

South Carolina Department of Revenue

Marie Funchess, (pro se) Applicant



This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1993) and

§ 1-23-310 et seq. upon an application for an off-premises beer and wine permit for Marie Funchess, d/b/a Whitmore Grocery, 721 Amelia Street, Orangeburg, South Carolina, filed with the Department of Revenue and Taxation (DOR). A hearing was held on November 2, 1994. The issues considered were the applicant's eligibility to hold a permit; the suitability of the proposed business location; and the nature of the proposed business activity. The permit application is granted.


By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

(1) The applicant seeks an off-premises beer and wine permit for a location at 721 Amelia Street, Orangeburg, South Carolina, having filed an application with DOR, AI # 99295, on

August 1, 1994.

(2) Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to the applicant, protestants, and DOR.

(3) The hearing was scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. on November 2, 1994, however, the court waited until 10:20 a.m. to insure that all participants were present.

(4) No protestants appeared at the hearing to testify in opposition to the application.

(5) Trinity United Methodist Church filed a written protest to the application with DOR, but no one from the church attended the hearing nor did anyone on the church's behalf request a continuance.

(6) The proposed location is a convenience grocery store, operated by the same family for over thirty (30) years.

(7) The proposed location previously held an off-premises beer and wine permit. A former owner of the store, Applicant's aunt, did not renew the permit a few years ago while in poor health.

(8) Applicant is over twenty-one years of age, is a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and has maintained her principal residence in South Carolina for more than one year.

(9) Applicant has not had a permit revoked in the last two years.

(10) Applicant, who intends to be the manager of the business, is of good moral character. (11) Notice of the application appeared in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed location for three consecutive weeks and was posted at the proposed location for fifteen days.


Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law the following:

(1) S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1993) provides that the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976 Code, as amended.

(2) S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) provides the criteria to be met by an applicant for a beer and wine permit in South Carolina.

(3) A permit or license must not be issued if an applicant does not meet the standards of

S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-730 (Supp. 1993).

(4) There being no evidence to the contrary presented, the proposed location is suitable and proper.

(5) Applicant meets the statutory requirements for issuance of a beer and wine permit.


IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that DOR issue to Applicant an off-premises beer and

wine permit upon payment of the prescribed fee and bond.




November 7, 1994

Columbia, South Carolina

Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2023 South Carolina Administrative Law Court