Opinion ID: 1318973
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Department's Authority

Text: The Department has authority over licensing under the Act, and that authority encompasses the initial determination, subject to judicial review, of whether a credit counseling organization satisfies a statutory exemption. [1] S.C.Code Ann. § 37-7-106 (Supp.2008). Section 37-7-106 empowers the Department to refuse to license an applicant or suspend or revoke a license or refuse to renew a license issued pursuant to this chapter if it finds, after notice and a hearing pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, the applicant was convicted of a felony or fraud; violated a provision of the Act; used fraud to obtain a license; participated in continuous unfair conduct; went bankrupt; or violated a reasonable rule or regulation made by the Department. Additionally, as Lexington Law Firm conceded at oral argument, the statute provides a two-step test to determine if a business is exempt. First, the business must qualify as one of the exempt categories and second, the organization must be acting in the regular course of its business. S.C.Code Ann. § 37-7-101(2)(b). Therefore, as the Department is charged by the Legislature with issuing licenses and is in the best position to implement the statutory test, we hold the Department is authorized to determine if a party is exempt from obtaining a license. See City of Rock Hill v. S.C. Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 302 S.C. 161, 165, 394 S.E.2d 327, 330 (1990) (As creatures of statute, regulatory bodies . . . possess only those powers which are specifically delineated. By necessity however, a regulatory body possesses not only the powers expressly conferred on it but also those which must be inferred or implied to effectively carry out the duties for which it is charged.) (citing City of Columbia v. Bd. of Health and Envtl. Control, 292 S.C. 199, 202, 355 S.E.2d 536, 538 (1987)). Furthermore, this Court should defer to the Department's findings where there is no compelling reason to reject it. Faile v. S.C. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 267 S.C. 536, 540, 230 S.E.2d 219, 221-22 (1976) (The construction of a statute by the agency charged with executing it is entitled to the most respectful consideration and should not be overruled without cogent reasons.).