Did renting spaces for other people to display cars for sale require a South Carolina dealer license?

Plain-English summary

A legislator described a constituent who planned to sublease spaces on leased land to people selling vehicles, charging monthly rent but no sales commission. The AG consulted an agency official who viewed the arrangement as attempting to effect motor-vehicle sales. Because it could not find that interpretation unreasonable, the AG concluded that the constituent needed a dealer license for the described activity.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the lack of a sales commission remove the licensing issue?
A: No. The AG said the agency viewed the furnished sales location as participation in attempts to effect sales.

Q: What license did the opinion require?
A: It concluded that the constituent needed a motor-vehicle dealer license for the described subleasing arrangement.

Q: Did the AG make an independent factual finding about every vehicle-lot rental?
A: No. The answer concerned the stated arrangement and deferred to the administering agency’s reasonable interpretation.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quoted the dealer definition as reaching a person who sells or attempts to effect a motor-vehicle sale and cited Section 56-15-310’s licensing requirement. It relied on the agency’s interpretation of the described activity rather than the absence of a commission.

Citations

• Section 56-15-310

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-23-2004-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04fmarch23mcgee.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER
A'TTORNEV GENERAL

March 23, 2004

The Honorable J. G. McGee, III
Member, House of Representatives
420-A Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Representative McGee:
In a letter to this office you indicated that a constituent of yours has leased a parcel of property and desires to sublease spaces on this property to third parties who would place vehicles on the property for sale. According to your letter, the constituent would make no commission from the sale of the vehicle and charges for the spaces on a monthly basis. The question has been raised as to whether the constituent would have to be licensed as a dealer in order to engage in the referenced activity. In researching your question I contacted an individual at the Department of Public Safety who was familiar with the constituent's request. That individual indicated that the constituent's activities would bring him within the definition of a "dealer". S.C. Code Ann. Section 56-15-1O(h)(l991) defines "dealer" as " ... any person who sells or attempts to effect the sale of any motor vehicle." (emphasis added). Pursuant to S .C. Code Ann. Section 56-15-310 (Supp. 2003 ), "(b)efore engaging in business as a dealer or wholesaler in this State, a person first must make application to the... (Department of Motor Vehicles) ... for a license." The individual at the Department indicated that the constituent's activities in providing a place of operation would come within the definition of "attempting to effect the sale" of a motor vehicle and, therefore, a license as a dealer would be required. Generally, the construction of a statute by the agency charged with its administration will be accorded the most respectful consideration and will not be overruled absent compelling reasons. Dunton v. South Carolina Board ofExaminers in Optometry, 291 S.C. 22 l , 353 S.E.2d 132 (1987); Faile v. South Carolina Employment Security Commission, 267 S.C. 536, 230 S.E.2d 219 (1976). As a matter of policy, this office typically defers to the administrative agency charged with the enforcement of a statute in question. See Op. Atty. Gen. dated September 15, 2003. As stated in an opinion of this office dated June 24, 2003 The courts have stated that it is not necessary that the administrative agency's construction be the only reasonable one or even one the court would have reached if
• , "\

REMBEW C/DENNIS BunDIN(j • Posr OFFICE Box 11549 • COUJMBIA, s.c. 29211-1549 • TEl.EPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

)?/J.A1'"''~ ('~ - ~.

The Honorable J. G. McGee, III
Page2
March 23, 2004

the question had initially risen in a judicial proceeding... Typically, so long as an administrative agency's interpretation of a statutory provision is reasonable, this office would defer to that interpretation. Consistent with such, this office is unable to conclude that the interpretation of the referenced provisions so as to indicate that a license is required in such circumstances is unreasonable. Therefore, it is my opinion that the constituent would have to be licensed as a dealer in order to engage in the activities referenced above. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours

I

dwMl!ll~
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General