ORDERS:
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Notice of Appeal in the above matter was filed with the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) by Appellant,
Adam T. McTeer, on May 30, 2000. Appellant appealed the Final Order of the Respondent Department of Labor,
Licensing and Regulation, Real Estate Commission (Department). The Department determined that the Appellant had
practiced real estate without a valid license, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-57-20 and 40-57-145(A)(20) (Supp.
1999), and it revoked his real estate license. Department ordered that Appellant be issued a public reprimand; that
Appellant pay a penalty of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars; that Appellant's real estate license be revoked; and that
Appellant may apply for a new license one (1) year after the effective date of the Order, provided that Appellant complied
with the payment of the penalty.
The Respondent filed the Record on Appeal with the ALJD on June 15, 2000. Appellant's Brief was filed on June 30,
2000, and Respondent's Brief was filed on July 14, 2000.
A hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2000 in the above matter, and the notice of
hearing was sent to Appellant and Respondent via regular mail on October 31, 2000. Notice of
hearing was also sent to Appellant via certified mail on November 14, 2000. Certified mail was delivered on November
15, 2000 and receipt received by the ALJD on November 17, 2000.
The hearing was held November 21, 2000 at the ALJD at 2:00 p.m. Counsel for Respondent was present and presented
Department's oral argument. Appellant failed to appear.
DISCUSSION
Appellant was licensed as a first year salesman on November 8, 1997 with Porter Realty, 255 Broad Street, Sumter, South
Carolina. In February 2000, the South Carolina Real Estate Commission (Commission) notified McTeer that his license
was canceled because he had failed to complete or to provide evidence of having completed the thirty (30) hours of
advanced real estate instruction that he was required to do pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 40-57-100(A)(1) (Supp. 1999).
Due to the cancellation of his license, Appellant sent an application to take the real estate salesman's licensure examination
to the Commission on March 16, 1999.
The Appellant's real estate license remained in a canceled status from February 16, 1999 through December 13, 1999,
when it was reinstated upon the Appellant's successful completion of the first year salesman's examination. However, in
August 1999, McTeer worked as the selling agent in a real estate transaction between Carrie and Anthony James (buyers)
and Jack and Barbara Buckner (sellers), for property located at 1554 Florence Highway, Sumter, South Carolina.
Appellant signed an agency disclosure document dated August 1999 which stated that he was the real estate agent in the
above real estate transaction, and Appellant was listed as a real estate salesman for Porter Realty Company during the
months of April, May and July 1999. Appellant stated in his Brief filed with the Administrative Law Judge Division on
June 30, 2000, that his argument in this matter appeals to the fairness of the penalty imposed by the Department. Appellant
requested in his Brief that his sanction be reconsidered and reduced.
Appellant was not present for the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division on
November 21, 2000.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 40-57-100 (A)(1) (Supp. 1999) a salesman, within
2
one year following licensure, must complete thirty (30) hours of post-licensing instruction in advanced real estate
principles and practices and must provide proof of completion. The result of failing to complete such hours will be a
cancellation of the license. The record clearly indicates that Appellant did not complete or provide evidence of completing
the required post-licensing hours of instruction within one year of his licensure and is in violation of that law. Appellant
was notified that his license was canceled due to his failure to complete the required hours of instruction, and therefore, did
not possess a valid license.
S.C. Code Ann. § 40-57-20 (Supp. 1999) states that acting as a real estate salesman or advertising as such without a valid
license is unlawful. Appellant was listed as a real estate agent with Porter Realty during the time that he was not licensed,
between February and December 1999. Appellant also participated in a real estate transaction in August 1999.
Furthermore, Appellant signed as the agent on the agency disclosure form for the transaction. Therefore, Appellant
violated S.C. Code Ann. § 40-57-20 (Supp. 1999).
The brief of Appellant states that he appeals the fairness of the penalty imposed by the Department. However, the position
of this tribunal is not to review the fairness of the Department's penalty, but to review whether substantial evidence exists
to support the Department's finding that Appellant violated real estate laws with regard to practicing without a license.
A reviewing court may not overturn an agency's decision unless the decision is "clearly
erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the whole record." S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6)(e) (Supp. 1999). Upon finding that substantial evidence exists to support the findings of the Department, this
tribunal must then determine whether the Department imposed penalties in accordance with South Carolina laws.
The Department was authorized to take disciplinary action against Appellant pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 40-57-145(A)(20). Furthermore, the Department did impose sanctions in
accordance with the laws of South Carolina. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-57-150(E)(2) and 40-57-100(A)(1) (Supp.1999).
I find that there is substantial evidence on the record to support the Department's
3
findings. I also find that the penalties imposed by the Department are in accordance with the laws of South Carolina.
Furthermore, as stated in the notice of hearing issued by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge, a failure to appear at
the hearing may result in a finding that the party who fails to appear does not object to the relief sought on appeal by the
opposing party; or a dismissal of the appeal or striking of the Brief of the party who fails to appear; or such other rulings as
are deemed appropriate by the Administrative Law Judge.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Respondent is affirmed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
Administrative Law Judge
January 3, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
4
|
