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:
Franklin A. Brown, d/b/a Fab's Bar & Grill vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Franklin A. Brown, d/b/a Fab's Bar & Grill

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-17-0027-CC

APPEARANCES:
Chief Deputy Jerry Wright, Newberry County Sheriff's Department, Protestant.
 

ORDERS:

ORDER AND DECISION

This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1993) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (Rev. 1986 & Supp. 1993) upon an application for an on-premises beer and wine permit for Rt. 1, Box 79-0, Silverstreet, South Carolina, on Highway 34 in Newberry County, by Franklin A. Brown filed with the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (hereinafter referred to as "DOR"). A hearing was held on March 29, 1995. Notice of the hearing was given by certified mail to the applicant and by first class mail to the protestant. Applicant failed to appear or contact the Court to request a continuance, constituting default. The hearing was conducted in Applicant's absence. The permit application is hereby denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

(1) Applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a location at Rt. 1,

Box 79-0, Silverstreet, South Carolina, on Highway 34 in Newberry County, having filed an application with DOR, AI #100051.

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

(3) Applicant received notice of the hearing via certified mail, return receipt signed and dated by Applicant February 8, 1995.

(4) Applicant did not communicate with this Court in any way to indicate that he would not be present at the hearing, and he did not request a continuance.

(5) After allowing fifteen (15) minutes from the scheduled time of commencement of the hearing and announcing in the hall the beginning of the proceedings, the hearing was conducted with Applicant in absentia.

(6) Protestant, Deputy Wright, informed the Court that he had personally attempted to talk with Applicant prior to the hearing, calling three times on the telephone and leaving a recorded message twice. Applicant failed to return Deputy Wright's calls.

(7) In light of Applicant's failure to appear at the hearing, Deputy Wright requested that the Court deny the permit application.

(8) The Newberry County Sheriff's Department, through Chief Deputy Jerry Wright, protests the application on the grounds that the proposed location is unsuitable and that the Applicant lacks the moral character to hold such a permit.

(9) The DOR file was incorporated into the record of the hearing without objection.

(10) Applicant is over twenty-one (21) years of age.

(11) Applicant is a citizen of the State of South Carolina maintaining his principal residence in South Carolina.

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

(13) There is no evidence that Applicant is not of good moral character; however, the DOR file indicates he was convicted of Driving Under the Influence in Newberry County on August 12, 1991.

(14) 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.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

(1) The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1993) and 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 before issuance of a beer and wine permit.

(3) As the trier of fact, an administrative law judge is authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed business location of an applicant for a permit to sell beer and wine using broad but not unbridled discretion. Ronald F. Byers v. S.C. ABC Commission, 316 S.E.2d 705 (S.C. App. 1984).

(4) Applicant is in default, and dismissal of the case adversely to Applicant pursuant to Rule 23, Temporary Operating Procedures of the Administrative Law Judge Division is in order.

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that DOR deny the on-premises beer and wine permit applied for.

_____________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

March 30, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court