SCDCA administers and enforces over 120 statutes. Some permit the Department to initiate investigations, issue an order, take civil action, take administrative action or refer a matter for criminal prosecution. When the Department issues an order or subpoena, or otherwise takes an action that affects a business, the affected business may request a contested case hearing at the Administrative Law Court. Full details of this process are included in the order/final decision document issued by the agency. Sample language can be viewed here: Right to Contest

General Consumer Protection Code

• Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection & SCDCA & State of Arkansas Attorney General vs. Candy Kern-Fuller, Howard Sutter III, and Upstate Law Group LLC (PDF) - SCDCA, the Bureau and the State of Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge alleged that Kern-Fuller, Sutter and ULG underwrote, approved, processed payments and collected debt from high-interest credit contracts in violation of federal and South Carolina law. 

• Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection & SCDCA vs. Katharine Snyder, Performance Arbitrage Company, Inc. and Life Funding Options, Inc. (PDF) - LFO, Snyder and PAC brokered consumer credit contracts that are explicitly governed by South Carolina law. SCDCA and the Bureau specifically alleged the contracts are void under state and federal law and that LFO, Snyder and PAC never disclosed the interest rate to consumers, nor did they obtain appropriate lender licenses from the state.

Mortgage

 

• O'Berry v. SCDCA (PDF) - O'Berry's license status as "approved-inactive" was upheld by the ALC due to his failure to comply with the ongoing duties associated with maintaining the license once it was issued.

• SCDCA & BOFI-CFD v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (PDF) - Settlement agreement whereby Ocwen, among other actions, agreed to transition to new servicing platform for managing escrow accounts, audit escrow accounts to identify issues, provide restitution to customers harmed by company's improperly handled mortgage payments, and establish a new complaint resolution process.

• Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Wilson et al (PDF) - SCDCA granted leave to appear as Amicus Curiae in case currently pending in the South Carolina Court of Appeals.  This case deals with the application of Attorney/Insurance Preference statute. In its Amicus Curiae brief, SCDCA gives historical overview of Attorney/Insurance Preference statute and explains why use of prepopulated form is a violation of the statute.

 

 

Preneed Funeral Contracts

 

• SCDCA v. Cremation Society of South Carolina, Inc. (PDF) - Settlement agreement whereby Cremation Society agreed to transfer more than $26,000 to third party trust accounts, maintain existing bonds for six years, pay an additional $25,500 into a fund maintained by SCDCA to ensure affected consumers would receive the services, and pay an administrative fine of $35,000.

• SCDCA v. Internal Revenue Service; Community Funeral Home, f/k/a Community Funeral Home, Inc., f/k/a James Community Funeral Home; and Leroy James and Rose James Individually (PDF) - Funeral home sold preneed funeral contracts without first obtaining a preneed funeral license from the SCDCA.  SCDCAobtained a Temporary Restraining Order to halt IRS from refunding excess auction proceeds to funeral home after IRS seized its assets for failure to pay federal taxes.

 

Pawnbroker

 

• SCDCA v. Fast Friendly Cash Today Pawn Shop (PDF) - Pawnshop agreed to $15,000 in fines, the suspension of its pawnbroker license for 12 months, and restrictions for future potential licensing for failing to take reasonable steps to ascertain property's true ownership.

• SCDCA v. Gaston Jewelry and Pawn Office, Inc. (PDF) - Pawnshop conducted pawnbroker activity without renewing its certificate of authority; ALC ordered pawnshop to cease and desist operating as a pawnbroker and pay a $10,000 administrative fine to SCDCA.  

• SCDCA v. A Bargain Center, LLC (PDF) - ALC found that business's “buyback”program constituted pawnbrokering activity for which ABC did not hold proper certification; Business ordered to pay a $2,500 fine and cease pawnbroker activity until receiving a valid certificate of authority from SCDCA, but no restitution was ordered.    

• SCDCA v. Robert D. Clemons, d/b/a Goodies Gifts & Pawn (PDF) - Revocation of Certificate of Authority and assessment of administrative fine against pawnshop that repeatedly accepted stolen goods without first attempting to ascertain true ownership of items.  

 

Physical Fitness

 

• SCDCA v. Devine Fitness, LLP (PDF) - Devine Fitness, LLP failed to obtain a certificate of authority prior to offering physical fitness services and was ordered by the ALC to cease and desist offering physical fitness services in South Carolina.

• SCDCA v. One Punch Fitness, LLC (PDF) - $3,000 settlement agreement for offering physical fitness services without first obtaining a certificate of authority from SCDCA. 

• SCDCA v. Dusty Mason, Individually, and d/b/a Carolina Fitness Group, d/b/a Gold's Gym Rock Hill; Sharon Mason, Individually (PDF) - Physical fitness provider failed to obtain a certificate of authority prior to offering physical fitness services in South Carolina.

 

Supervised Lending

 

• Home Benefits, Inc. & American Traveler Motor Club, Inc. v. SCDCA (PDF) - Home Benefits, Inc. brought suit following SCDCA's rescission of a Declaratory Ruling allowing for the sale of non-credit insurance products from the offices of supervised lenders if certain conditions were met.

• S.C. Dept. of Consumer Affairs and S.C. Board of Financial Institutions v. Cash Call and Western Sky Financial (PDF) - $9.65 million settlement agreement with CashCall, Inc., an internet based lender. This comprehensive settlement affected over 8,300 loans entered into by South Carolina consumers between 2010-2013, ranging from $700-$10,000 with interest rates from 90%-355%. 

• SCDCA v. Cash Central of South Carolina, LLC (PDF) - Supervised lender failed to file and post a maximum rate schedule for three consecutive filing periods. SCDCA seeks recasting of finance charges and refunds of excess charges paid by consumers. Appeal currently pending at Court of Appeals.