ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This
matter is currently pending before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court
(ALC) pursuant to the Charles R. Robertson’s (Appellant) Notice of Appeal which
was filed on May 7, 2008. The Respondent South Carolina Department of Motor
Vehicles (Department) filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 21, 2008. The Appellant
did not file a response to this Motion.
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. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the ALC on
May 7, 2008. “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
July 2, 2008
Columbia, South Carolina
|