holding a party's belief "even with good reason[ ] that [the agency would] reject her claim[ ] d[id] not establish futility as a basis for excusing exhaustion in the absence of a definitive statement by the agency administrator"
How later courts described this case
- holding a party's belief "even with good reason[ ] that [the agency would] reject her claim[ ] d[id] not establish futility as a basis for excusing exhaustion in the absence of a definitive statement by the agency administrator"
- instructing that this court "should not serve as a substitute for 'a tribunal of original jurisdiction in issues that are ripe for litigation by the usual processes'"
- "[A] court ordinarily will refuse to grant a declaratory judgment where a special statutory remedy has been provided."
- "An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court is controlled by an error of law or where the [c]ourt's order is based on factual conclusions without evidentiary support."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CURETON, Judge
(Concurring):
I concur in the result reached by the majority on all issues, but I would analyze Section II of the opinion dealing with “Exhaustion of Remedies” differently. I view S.C.Code Annotated Section 9-18-30 as establishing a jurisdictional bar to the circuit court considering former Wife’s declaratory judgment action against SCRS. That section makes the administrator of the retirement system the exclusive authority to determine the effect of the divorce order on the husband’s retirement benefits. S.C.Code Ann. § 9-18-30(A). If the ad *533 ministrator refuses to. implement the terms of the divorce order, former Wife may appeal that decision to the Administrative Law Judge Division. An adverse decision by the Administrative Law Judge Division may be appealed to the circuit court. As I interpret Section 9-18-80, an appeal from the administrative law judge is the exclusive method of obtaining judicial review. The circuit court simply does not have jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory judgment action against the retirement system where the issue concerns qualification of a domestic order.