ORDERS:
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR A NEW TRIAL
By a Final Order and Decision dated April 18, 2002, this tribunal granted Respondents' joint motion for an involuntary
nonsuit against Petitioner pursuant to ALJD Rule 68 and Rule 41(b), SCRCP, and dismissed the above-captioned matter
with prejudice. On April 29, 2002, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial. Respondents
submitted a joint response in opposition to Petitioner's motion on May 14, 2002.
While Petitioner raises several objections to the Final Order and Decision in its motion for reconsideration, the gravamen of
Petitioner's motion is that this tribunal failed to make an affirmative finding that Respondent Plantation Land Properties
("PLP") had exercised due diligence toward completion of its permitted project. See Pet'r Mot. for Recons. and for New
Trial at 2 ("Nowhere is it stated that there has been a positive finding that due diligence toward completion of the work has
been made as evidenced by significant work progress."). However, this tribunal was not required to make such a finding.
This tribunal, as trier of the facts, was entitled to find that Petitioner had failed to meet its burden to prove that PLP had not
exercised due diligence in its work without making an affirmative finding that PLP had, in fact, exercised due diligence.
Simply put, the mere conclusion that Petitioner has not proven a state of facts to exist does not require or even imply the
conclusion that the opposite state of facts must exist. Cf. 32A C.J.S. Evidence § 1339, at 757 (1996) ("A verdict or finding
must be based on the evidence and must be based on the facts proved.") (emphasis added). In the Final Order and
Decision, this tribunal appropriately made findings of only those facts that had been proven by a preponderance of the
evidence. Petitioner's contention that other findings should have been made must, therefore, fail. See id. at 758 ("The
decision should be against the party having the burden of proof where . . . the evidence as to a material issue is
insufficient[.]").
In reaching its final decision in this matter, this tribunal thoroughly considered the law underlying Petitioner's position and
fully weighed the evidence presented by Petitioner in support of that position. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial is respectfully DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
May 17, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |
