ORDERS:
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) upon Respondent's
Motion for Reconsideration of the Division's Order dated March 12, 1996 (incorporated herein by
reference). After a hearing on October February 27, 1996, Respondent was enjoined from
engaging in any building activities and was fined $1500. This action was taken because
Respondent willfully violated the provisions of an order requiring him to cease and desist from
"entering into any contract for, engaging in, or accepting payment for, any building, remodeling,
or other construction on behalf of another for which the remuneration, in aggregate, exceeds
$199.99."
Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Order citing the following issues as grounds for this
tribunal to consider in order to reach a different conclusion in this case: 1) the placement of the
pad/slab accompanying the garage, 2) the date the contract was entered into and the date partial
work on the project was completed, and 3) problems with obtaining zoning approval from
Richland County on the proposal to enlarge the pad/slab. Respondent also alleges that Mr.
Robert W. Fouche, the individual for whom Respondent was building the garage, mislead the
Division about the price of the job and about his knowledge of the cease and desist order.
Respondent's motion does not provide a basis for reconsideration of my March 12, 1996 Order.
An "... agency's (or an ALJ's) power to rehear or reconsider a case is not an arbitrary one, and
such power should be exercised only when there is justification and good cause; i.e., newly
discovered evidence, fraud, surprise, mistake, inadvertence or change in conditions." Bennett v.
City of Clemson, 293 S.C. 64, 358 S.E.2d 707 (1987). Even assuming the facts are as presented
by Respondent, these facts do not affect the ultimate issue and decision in the case. Respondent
has failed to establish the justification and good cause necessary for reconsideration to be granted.
The issues Respondent raises for my consideration were all raised at the hearing.
For the foregoing reasons, Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
April____, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina. |
