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:
Robert J. Fields and Summerville Business Center vs. SCDHEC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Robert J. Fields and Summerville Business Center

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-07-0372-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

This matter is before me pursuant to a Petition and Rule to Show Cause filed on May 16, 2001, by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Department). Heather Stafford, an enforcement officer with the Bureau of Water, testified that the installment of the fine due on or before May 1, 2001, has not been received, as provided under the terms of the Consent Order filed on April 23, 2001. The Department requests that this tribunal find Petitioners in contempt and order that they comply with the terms of the Consent Order.

The Administrative Law Judge Division has the authority to enforce its own Orders through the power of contempt. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-630 (Supp. 2000)(each law judge of the Administrative Law Judge Division has the same power at chambers or in open hearing as do circuit court judges); State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 503 S.E.2d 214(Ct. App. 1998) aff'd 337 S.C. 617, 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999)(quoting In re Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 303 (1888))("'The power to punish for contempt is inherent in the nature and constitution of a court. It is a power not derived from any statute, but arising from necessity; implied, because it is necessary to the exercise of all other powers.'"); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1350 (Supp. 2000)("An adult who willfully violates, neglects, or refuses to obey or perform a lawful order of the court. . . may be proceeded against for contempt of court."). "Disobedience of a Court's lawful or valid Order, Judgment, or Decree is such interference with the administration of justice as to constitute 'contempt,' . . . ." Long v. McMillan, 226 S.C. 598, 86 S.E.2d 477 (1955); see also Pirkle v. Pirkle, 303 S.C. 266, 399 S.E.2d 797 (Ct. App. 1990). "Courts have no more important function to perform in the administration of justice than to ensure their orders are obeyed." State v. Bevilacqua, 316 S.C. 122, 447 S.E.2d 213 (Ct. App. 1994). "Nevertheless, contempt is an extreme measure and the power to adjudge a person in contempt is not to be lightly asserted." Id.

Mr. Fields stated that he was involved in a court case involving a contract for the purchase of land which had been pending for two years; that case was heard before Judge Peeples during the week of April 23. Judge Peeples granted a directed verdict, which allowed Mr. Fields to purchase the land for $188, 000 within 30 days. Consequently, Mr. Fields claims he used all available assets to purchase the land and thus was unable to comply with the Consent Order. Mr. Fields stated that he anticipates closing the sale on a portion of the land, an unencumbered 8 acre parcel, next week, which will yield a profit of approximately $120,000. He then intends to pay the Department the $4,000 due under the terms of the Consent Order out of those proceeds.

This tribunal is cognizant that circumstances have made payment of the fine difficult in this instance. Nonetheless, the Department should not have to seek repeated enforcement of the Consent Order as each deadline passes. I find that Petitioners are in Contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the Consent Order. Nonetheless, I find that Petitioners have demonstrated a willingness to pay the agreed upon fine in the very near future. Petitioners are cautioned that they should not expect this tribunal's leniency in any future contempt proceedings. No excuses for nonpayment or failure to close the real estate sale next week will be accepted. If payment is not made to the Department by June 30, 2001, a $500 fine will be due immediately to the Administrative Law Judge Division. If credible evidence is submitted to this tribunal after that date that Petitioners persist in not paying the fine due, Petitioners will be subject to additional fines or jail or both.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioners are fined $500, which is suspended on the condition that Petitioners submit the $4,000 payment to the Department by June 30, 2001.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge



June 22, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court