Saturday, September 20, 2014

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Cory Alexander Mauldin vs .SCDMV

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Cory Alexander Mauldin

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
07-ALJ-21-0480-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF REMAND

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed September 24, 2007. Cory Alexander Mauldin (Motorist or Mauldin) appeals the Final Order and Decision of the South Carolina Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings (DMVH). The DMVH’s Final Order and Decision was issued following an administrative hearing held pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2951(B)(2) (2006). Mauldin claims that the DMVH erroneously upheld his driver’s license suspension.

On October 26, 2007, the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) filed a Motion to Dismiss in this matter. The Department seeks dismissal pursuant to ALC Rule 33 which provides that a party appealing from a decision of an agency must serve the notice on “each party and the agency whose final decision is the subject of the appeal…”. ALC Rule 33 (2007). Specifically, the Department contends that service was improper because Mauldin attempted to serve the Department at an improper address, to wit, the address of the Department of Public Safety.

Subsequently, on October 30, 2007, the Motorist filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. In the Memorandum, Mauldin contends that service was indeed proper because the Notice of Appeal was served on both the Department and Department of Public Safety. Mauldin admits that the Department’s copy was sent to the address of the Department of Public Safety, but argues that service was proper because he used this address in his previous correspondence with the Department. Furthermore, Mauldin states that he was only made aware of an alternate or additional address of the Department after receiving the Record on Appeal on October 24, 2007.

By letter dated December 13, 2007, the Department withdrew its Motion to Dismiss and stated that it has no objection to remanding this matter to the DMVH for a new hearing.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, I find that remand is appropriate here.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-referenced appeal is hereby REMANDED to the DMVH for a new hearing on the merits.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________

JOHN D. MCLEOD

Administrative Law Judge

December 17, 2007

Columbia, South Carolina


~/pdf/070480.pdf
PDF