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Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-442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.