In Mississippi State Board of
Contractors v. Hobbs Construction, LLC, the Supreme Court of Mississippi analyzed
whether the Mississippi State Board of Contractors (“the Board”) deprived Hobbs
Construction, LLC (“Hobbs”) of its procedural right to due process. 2020 WL
1081410 (Miss. 2020).
The Board filed suit against
Hobbs in December 2016 when Pyramid Interiors Distributors (“Pyramid”), a supplier,
complained to the Board that Hobbs owed it money for materials. A hearing was
ordered by the Board, but before it occurred, Hobbs and Pyramid agreed to
attempt to resolve the dispute. The issues between Pyramid and Hobbs were not
resolved, and the Board filed an amended complaint against Hobbs warning it
that the Board could suspend or revoke its certificate of responsibility. The
Board eventually held a hearing, at which neither Hobbs nor Pyramid was
present. The Board considered past complaints filed against Hobbs, in addition
to Pyramid’s complaint, and voted to revoke Hobbs’ certificate of
responsibility.
Hobbs appealed the revocation to
the Chancery Court, which found that the Board failed to afford Hobbs due
process because the Board relied on prior complaints filed against Hobbs, separate
from Pyramid’s complaints. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court of
Mississippi.
It is well-settled law that the
holder of a license issued by the government that entitles the holder to
perform specific kinds of work to earn a living has a protected property
interest in the license and must be afforded due process before being deprived
of that license. Under the Mississippi Code, the Board may revoke a certificate
of responsibility after affording the contractor ten days’ notice of a hearing
at which the contractor shall have an opportunity to present all lawful
evidence which he may offer. Miss. Code Ann. § 31-1-13. The Supreme
Court of Mississippi has recognized the constitutional due process requirement that
a license holder be given notice of the specific charges to be used as the
basis for revoking the license.
The Board’s amended complaint gave no indication that any
prior complaints against Hobbs would be considered. The amended complaint only set
forth the charge relating to Pyramid and Pyramid alone. The Supreme Court
affirmed the Chancery Court’s holding, stating that nothing on the Board’s
notice reasonably should have prompted Hobbs to request that the charge be made
more definite and certain. The Board’s notice likewise did not afford Hobbs a
full opportunity to know the charges against it and to present a responsive
defense. Therefore, the Board violated Hobbs’ right to procedural due process
by revoking its license on grounds other than those for which it was provided
notice in advance of the hearing.
