Saturday, October 25, 2014

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Stephanie Marie Figueroa vs. SCDMV, et al

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Stephanie Marie Figueroa

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles and Lyman Police Department
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
08-ALJ-21-0204-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On May 21, 2008, Respondent South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) filed a Motion to Dismiss this matter with the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court). The Department seeks a dismissal on the grounds that the Appellant failed to serve the Department with the notice of appeal within thirty (30) days of receipt of the decision.

The Respondent seeks a dismissal under ALC Rule 33. ALC Rule 33 provides that the Notice of Appeal shall be filed with the Court and “a copy served on each party…within thirty (30) days of receipt of the decision from which the appeal is taken.” By the Appellant’s own admission and as reflected in the Record on Appeal, the Department was never served with Appellant’s Notice of Appeal.


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 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 intent to appeal in a timely manner).[1] Additionally, it is also well established that a court does not have the authority to extend the time for taking an appeal from a decision of an administrative agency. See, e.g., id.; Burnette v. S.C. State 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). Nonetheless, this matter must be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

June 3, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina



[1] ALC Rule 68 allows the Court to apply the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules “where practicable . . . to resolve questions not addressed by these rules.”


~/pdf/080204.pdf
PDF