 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Antelope Valley Improvement and Service District of Gillette v. State Board of Equalization for the State of Wyoming12/9/1999
iling a case notice of appeal begins to run on the day after the date of the decision and ends thirty days later. Antelope Valley contends the Department did not provide evidence that it mailed the decision letter on the date of the letter. However, the Board Rule does not contemplate use of the date the letter was mailed. Rather, the only relevant date under the rule is the date of the final administrative decision.
The Department denied Antelope Valley=s exemption request by letter dated October 15, 1997. The time period for filing the appeal of that decision began to run on Thursday, October 16, 1997, and ended on Friday, November 14, 1997. The case notice of appeal was post marked November 17, 1997. Therefore, Antelope Valley did not file its case notice within the time period required by the Board=s Rule. Timely filing of a request for administrative review of an agency decision is mandatory and jurisdictional. Fullmer, 858 P.2d at 1124. Antelope Valley=s untimely filing of its case notice of appeal deprived the Board of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The Board did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and dismissal was appropriate.
Due Process
Antelope Valley argues that it was denied due process because it did not have the benefit of the full thirty days provided for in the rule to respond. However, nothing in the unambiguous language of Section 5 provides for the running of the appeal period from the date of mailing or the date of receipt of notice as opposed to the date on which the Department rendered its decision. A rule that provides thirty days after the date of the decision to file an appeal does not entitle the recipient to file the appeal thirty days after actual notice of the decision.
As long as a party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to a ruling and to appeal, due process is not violated. Jones v. Jones, 903 P.2d 545, 548 (Wyo. 1995). ADue
process merely affords the opportunity to be heard.@ Id. Antelope Valley does not contend it did not have time to respond in this case. Absent allegations that Antelope Valley was denied a reasonable opportunity to respond to the Department=s decision, due process is not implicated. Here, Antelope Valley received all the notice required by law and did not demonstrate any prejudice or harm. See Palmer v. Crook County Sch. Dist. 1, 785 P.2d 1160, 1163 (Wyo. 1990). The Board=s determination that the case notice was untimely filed was in accordance with law.
Proper Parties to Appeal
The Wyoming State Board of Equalization filed a brief with this Court as an appellee in this matter. We find no authority for an adjudicatory body to file briefs as if it were a party to the action. AGenerally a court or board exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions, not being a party to its proceedings, and not having any legal interest in maintaining its determination, can neither appeal from a judgment or order of a court reversing the proceedings nor be heard on the appeal.@ 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error ' 175 (1993).
As we noted in Basin Electric, the legislature was clear in its mandate that the Board and the Department have separate and distinct duties. Basin Elec. Power Co-op., Inc. v. State of Wyo. Department of Revenue, 970 P.2d 841, 849 (Wyo. 1998). AWith the Wyoming Government Reorganization Act, the legislature created two separate entities with separate duties and responsibilities. See Wyo. Stat. '' 39-1-301 (Cum. Supp. 1993) and 9-2-2007 (1997).@ Id. As a result of the reorganization, the Department is completely separate from the Board. Amax Coal Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 819 P.2d 825, 833 (Wyo. 1991). AThe resulting function
Page 1 2 3 4 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|