The above-captioned matter arises from Petitioner’s belated attempt to challenge
Respondent Richland County Assessor’s (Assessor) determination that a licensed real estate
broker could not represent Petitioner in an appeal of the 2004 assessment of Petitioner’s property
located at 105 Marietta Street in Richland County, South Carolina, identified as Tax Map
Number 14108-11-13. For the reasons set forth below, I find that this case must be dismissed as
untimely filed.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is currently incarcerated with the South Carolina Department of Corrections at
the Evans Correctional Institution in Bennettsville, South Carolina, and was so incarcerated
during the time periods relevant to the instant matter. Because of his incarceration, Petitioner
had another individual, Bruce Hook, who is licensed as a real estate broker in South Carolina,
represent him during his initial efforts to challenge the Assessor’s valuation of his property for
the 2004 property tax reassessment. By a letter dated September 21, 2004, the Assessor
informed Petitioner that, under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-90(C) (Supp. 2004), Mr. Hook was not
authorized to represent him in the appeal of his assessment, and that, because Petitioner’s
objection filed by Mr. Hook was not “a properly completed and legally signed” notice of
objection to his property tax, the objection would be considered abandoned. (Letter from Fancey
to Dehoney of 9/21/04, at 1.) By a self-styled “Belated Notice of Appeal” filed on November
23, 2004, Petitioner seeks to appeal the Assessor’s dismissal of his objection to his property tax
assessment before this Court. In his request, Petitioner contends that his belated filing should be
allowed because he did not learn of the possibility of challenging the Assessor’s determination
before this Court until reading a decision of the South Carolina Court of Appeals in the October
25, 2004 advance sheet. See B&A Dev., Inc. v. Georgetown County, Op. No. 3877 (S.C. Ct.
App. filed Oct. 25, 2004) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 42 at 66).
DISCUSSION
While the precise procedural posture of Petitioner’s request for a hearing is somewhat
muddled, even assuming that Petitioner was entitled to directly challenge the Assessor’s
September 21, 2004 determination before this Court, Petitioner’s failure to file his request within
thirty days of the Assessor’s decision deprives this Court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC) is authorized to preside over
contested cases arising under the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act. See S.C. Code Ann.
§ 12-60-30(1), (4) (Supp. 2004); S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-60-3310 et seq. (Supp. 2004). However,
for this Court to hear such a contested case, its jurisdiction must be properly invoked through a
timely request for a contested case. See Botany Bay Marina, Inc. v. Townsend, 296 S.C. 330,
372 S.E.2d 584 (1988) (holding that a party’s failure to file an appeal of a zoning decision within
the statutory time period divested the board of adjustment of jurisdiction to hear the appeal),
overruled on other grounds by Woodard v. Westvaco Corp., 319 S.C. 240, 460 S.E.2d 392
(1995); Burnett v. S.C. State Highway Dep’t, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969) (holding that
a landowner’s failure to timely appeal a condemnation decision by the Highway Department
deprived the reviewing court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal); see also, e.g., Schaible Oil Co. v.
N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 586 A.2d 853, 855-56 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991) (“The statutory
time limit for requesting an adjudicatory hearing is mandatory and jurisdictional[;] . . . .
enlargement of statutory time for appeal to a state administrative agency lies solely within the
power of the Legislature . . . and not with the agency or the courts.”); Lewis v. N.C. Dep’t of
Human Res., 375 S.E.2d 712, 714 (N.C. App. 1989) (“The right to appeal to an administrative
agency is granted by statute, and compliance with statutory provisions is necessary to sustain the
appeal.”).
In the case at hand, Petitioner has not properly invoked this tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Pursuant to ALC Rule 11, a request for a contested case in a county tax matter must be
filed with the Clerk of the ALC “within thirty (30) days after the date of the written decision.”
Here, Petitioner concededly did not file his request for a hearing before this Court within thirty
days of the date of the Assessor’s letter rejecting his objection to his property tax assessment.
Rather, he filed his “Belated Notice of Appeal” some sixty-five days after the Assessor issued its
determination regarding his representation, and thus failed to properly invoke this tribunal’s
jurisdiction. Moreover, as the timely filing of a request for a contested case is a jurisdictional
requirement, the time for filing a request cannot be extended by this Court nor can an untimely
filing be deemed timely because of the filing party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect. See, e.g., Burnett, 252 S.C. at 570-71, 167 S.E.2d at 572.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED with
prejudice because of Petitioner’s failure to timely file his request for a hearing before this Court.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
March 9, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
