Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-442 - SCDCA v. Vision Financial

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs, Respondent,

v.

Vision Financial Management, LLC and Nelzarie Wynn, as an individual, Appellants.


Appeal From the Administrative Law Court
The Honorable Carolyn C. Matthews


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-442
Submitted June 16, 2010 – Filed October 13, 2010


REVERSED


Randall Scott Hiller, of Greenville, for Appellants.

Carolyn Grube Lybarker, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Vision Financial Management, LLC and Nelzarie Wynn (Appellants) appeal from an order of the Administrative Law Court, which required them to refund the money they collected from consumers for credit counseling services Appellants provided in violation of the Consumer Credit Counseling Act. Appellants contend the Administrative Law Court does not have the power to grant the Department of Consumer Affairs a refund.  We agree and reverse that portion of the order based on Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the reasoning set forth in South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs v. Foreclosure Specialists, Inc., Op. No. 4749 (S.C. Ct. App. filed September 29, 2010).[1]

REVERSED.[2]

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.


[1] Because we find the Administrative Law Court did not have the authority to order the refund, we need not address whether Nelzarie Wynn, individually, is responsible for paying the refund.  Whiteside v. Cherokee County Sch. Dist. No. One, 311 S.C. 335, 340, 428 S.E.2d 886, 889 (1993) (finding the appellate court need not address all issues when decision on a prior issue is dispositive).  To the extent Wynn argues she is not responsible for any relief ordered beyond the refund, we deem the issue has been abandoned on appeal.  See R & G Constr., Inc. v. Lowcountry Reg'l Transp. Auth., 343 S.C. 424, 437, 540 S.E.2d 113, 120 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding that an issue is abandoned when the appellant's brief treats it in a conclusory manner).  

[2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.