ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This
matter is currently pending before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court
(ALC) pursuant to Vertrice T. Lane’s (“Appellant”) Notice of Appeal which was filed
on February 21, 2008. The Respondent South Carolina Department of Motor
Vehicles (“Department”) filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 7, 2008. The Appellant
responded to this Motion on June 4, 2008.
This
Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter under ALC Rule 33. Rule 33 states
that:
The notice of appeal from the final decision of an agency to be
heard by the Administrative Law Court shall be filed with the Court and
a copy served on each party and the agency whose final decision is the subject
of the appeal within thirty (30) days of receipt of the decision from which the
appeal is taken.
As
set forth in ALC Rule 33, the Department must be served with a copy of the
notice of appeal within thirty (30) days of the Appellant’s receipt of the
final decision of the Department.
In
this case, there is no evidence in the record that the Department was served with
the Notice of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the Appellant’s receipt of the
Department’s final decision. The final decision was rendered on February 1,
2008. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the ALC on February 21, 2008.
The copy of the Record on Appeal sent by the Department of Motor Vehicle
Hearing (“DMVH”) contains a copy of the actual notice and the certificate of service
does not indicate that the Department was ever served with it. The Appellant
admits in her response that she never served the Department with the Notice of
Appeal, but requests that the court excuse this inaction because her counsel
has been ineffective and she is essentially a pro se litigant.
“Subject
matter jurisdiction of the court depends on the authority granted to the court
by the constitution and laws of the state.” Paschal v. Causey, 309 S.C.
206, 420 S.E.2d 863, 865 (Ct. App. 1992). The Department was not served with
the notice of appeal within thirty (30) days, as required by ALC Rule 33.
Therefore, the Appellant has not properly invoked the jurisdiction of this
tribunal.
The
Supreme Court has set forth that a court must dismiss an appeal where the
Appellant fails to serve a party with the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See Southbridge Properties, Inc., v. Jones, 292 S.C. 198, 355
S.E.2d 535 (1987) (applying appellate court rules and dismissing the case for
failure to serve a notice of intent to appeal in a timely manner); Mears v.
Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985) (applying appellate court rules
and finding lack of jurisdiction for failure to serve a notice of appeal in a
timely manner). Additionally it is well established that a court does not have
the authority to extend the time for taking an appeal from a decision of a
state agency. E.g. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206
(1985); Burnette v. S.C. Highway Dep’t, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571
(1969). This tribunal recognizes the harsh result of this decision but is
constrained by the rules and legal precedent in this State. See McClain
v. Ingram, 314 S.C. 359, 444 S.E.2d 512 (1994).
Because
Appellant failed to serve his Notice of Appeal on the Department, this court
does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter. Therefore, this case must be
dismissed.
It
is hereby ORDERED that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________
CAROLYN C.
MATTHEWS
Administrative
Law Judge
June 5, 2008
Columbia, South Carolina
|