ORDERS:
ORDER
REVERSED AND REMANDED
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) pursuant to a request by
Appellant, Mansion Homes, Inc. (Manufacturer), for an appeal of the Order of the South Carolina
Manufactured Housing Board (Board) requiring Manufacturer to replace certain appliances and
make certain repairs to a mobile home purchased from Ridgewood Homes, Inc. (Dealer) by Mr.
Eugene Buccheri (Buyer). The Board found Mansion Homes in violation of S.C. Code Ann. §
40-29-10, et seq. (Supp. 1995), S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-29-150(5), (14), and (15) (Supp. 1995),
SC Code Ann. §§ 40-29-170(1) and Regulation 19-425.37.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
The issues on appeal are 1) whether the Board erred in requiring the Manufacturer to replace the
oven and stove and whirlpool in the Mr. Buccheri's manufactured home, 2) whether the Board
erred in requiring the Manufacturer to replace the whirlpool, 3) whether the Board erred in
requiring the Manufacturer to replace molding in the kitchen and bathroom and clean dirt spots
from the walls of the home, and 4) whether the case should be remanded because the Board failed
to provide a full and complete record of the contested case hearing.
The Appellant Manufacturer contends that it is not responsible for the alleged representations of
the Dealer with regard to the appliances. Further the Manufacturer contends that it did not cause
the damage to the molding or walls, and therefore, should not be liable for the replacement and
repair of those items.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction on appeal is vested in the ALJD pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-600 (Supp.
1995) and 40-69-150 (Supp. 1995). On appeal to the ALJD, the standard of review is limited to
the record presented. An administrative law judge shall not substitute his judgement for that of an
agency unless the agency's determination is affected by error of law or clearly erroneous in view
of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record. S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-380 (A)(6) (Supp. 1995); Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 1, 1994, Mr. Eugene Buccheri purchased a new manufactured home from Ridgewood
Homes, Inc. in Spartanburg, South Carolina. This home was manufactured to order by Mansion
Homes, Inc. On August 26, 1994, the Buyer filed a complaint with the South Carolina
Manufactured Housing Board, alleging numerous defects in the home. The Board issued an
inspection report on December 30, 1994, which listed numerous violations of statutory and
regulatory standards regarding manufactured homes. The Board directed the Dealer and the
Manufacturer to correct the noncompliant items indicated therein. The Board then reinspected
the home and found that various items remained uncorrected.
On April 12, 1996, the Board served a Notice of Hearing and Complaint on the Dealer and the
Manufacturer, indicating that some defects stated in the December 30, 1994 report had not been
corrected. The Complaint charges the Manufacturer with failing to make corrections to the
molding and failing to replace the stove. The Dealer was charged with failing to correct the
marriage or joinder of the two halves of the mobile home. The Complaint further charged the
Dealer and the Manufacturer with jointly failing to correct the spots on the walls and replace the
whirlpool tub. The Board, on May 9, 1996, issued a second report, listing the remaining defects
to be corrected.
A contested case hearing was held by the Board on May 16, 1996. On May 23, 1996, the Board
issued its Final Decision and Order requiring the Manufacturer to 1) replace molding in the
kitchen and bathroom, 2) replace the Kenmore stove and oven with a Jenn-Aire brand
self-cleaning stove and oven, 3) replace the plastic whirlpool tub with a Jacuzzi brand fiberglass
whirlpool tub, and 4) clean dirt spots on the walls and molding throughout the home. The Board
required the Dealer to repair the living room floor, which was incorrectly joined, and repair a
carpet seam.
INSUFFICIENCY OF RECORD
Appellant Manufacturer asserts that this matter should be remanded for a new hearing because the
Board failed to provide a full and complete record of all the testimony in the contested case
hearing in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1995). This provision of the Code is
applicable to proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge, not to proceedings before state
boards and commissions. Notwithstanding, the official transcript of the proceedings is incomplete
and unable to be fully transcribed. The use of ellipses through substantially all of the document
indicates that the testimony could not be understood by the transcriber. Moreover, a thorough
review of the tape of the Board hearing by the undersigned confirms that a full and complete
transcription can not be made. A partial and incomplete transcript has rendered the record on
appeal incomplete for purposes of review.
INSUFFICIENCY OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-350 (1986) specifically requires an agency's final decision or order in a
contested case to "include findings of fact and conclusions of law . . . accompanied by a concise
and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings." The S.C. Supreme Court,
in Parsons v. Georgetown Steel, ___ S.C. ___, 456 S.E.2d 366 (1995), considered the issue of
whether substantial evidence supported the findings of an administrative agency. The Court,
citing Able Communications, Inc. v. S.C. Public Service Comm'n, held that the findings of fact of
an administrative body must be sufficiently detailed to enable the reviewing court to determine
whether the findings are supported by the evidence.
In this case, the Board found that the Manufacturer failed to comply with four of the directives set
out in its December 30, 1994 report, without stating the underlying facts which supported that
conclusion. The findings are void of any reference to the specifics as to the cause and extent of
the damages to the home or the misunderstandings relative to the type of appliances.
Additionally, the violations are inconsistent with the charges against the Manufacturer as listed in
the Complaint. The Board concluded that the Manufacturer violated several statutory and
regulatory provisions by failing to comply with warranty requirements, by failing to account for
items belonging to others, and by failing to follow directives of the Board to correct the
noncompliant items.
The Board's Order of May 23, 1996 does not comply with the form and content required by
Section 1-23-350 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Order merely assigns the
responsibility for making certain repairs to the Dealer and others to the Manufacturer, without
articulating the legal basis of liability for each. Moreover, the findings fail to enumerate the nature
and kind of the warranty violations, making it impossible to determine how the warranty
provisions apply to the Manufacturer.
As a detailed statement of the facts is a necessity, so is a clear and thorough explanation of the
applicable law. Absent guidance as to how and why a particular law has been violated, a
reviewing tribunal is unable to discern, on its own, whether the actions of the party in question
were inadequate. Here, the findings of fact are insufficiently detailed to allow this reviewing body
to determine whether they are supported by the evidence.
CONCLUSION
Those portions of the Order of the Board dated May 23, 1996 applicable to the Appellant
Manufacturer are reversed and this matter is remanded for a new contested case hearing on the
allegations against the Manufacturer contained in the Complaint. After conducting the hearing,
the Board will issue a final decision containing findings of fact "sufficiently detailed to enable the
reviewing court to determine whether the findings are supported by the evidence and whether the
law has been properly applied to those findings." Also, the Board is ordered to render specific
conclusions of law detailing which statutory or regulatory provisions, if any, have been violated.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
This _____ day of January 1997.
_______________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge |
