Harris v. City of Akron
| Decision Date | 28 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 25689 |
| Citation | 2011 Ohio 6735 |
| Parties | CARL HARRIS Appellant v. CITY OF AKRON Appellee |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
INTRODUCTION
{¶1} Somebody allegedly drove Carl Harris's car through an active school zone in the City of Akron at a speed of 34 miles per hour. Nestor Traffic Systems, under a contract with the City, was operating an "Automated Mobile Speed Enforcement System" in the zone and issued Mr. Harris a notice of civil violation for exceeding the applicable 20-miles-per-hour limit. Mr. Harris requested and received an administrative hearing, after which the hearing officer declared him liable for the violation. He attempted to appeal the hearing officer's decision to the Summit County Common Pleas Court. That court, however, determined that he had failed to timely perfect his appeal, and he has appealed the Common Pleas Court's decision to this Court. We affirm the decision of the Common Pleas Court because Mr. Harris failed to file his notice of appeal with the hearing officer within 30 days of her decision.
BACKGROUND
{¶2} The hearing officer, who is an employee of the City, issued her decision on January 19, 2010. According to Mr. Harris, he attempted to file his notice of appeal with the Summit County Clerk of Courts on February 12, 2010. The record does include a poverty affidavit completed by Mr. Harris and notarized by an employee of the clerk's office on that date. Mr. Harris has argued that the clerk should have accepted his notice of appeal that day. In fact, the clerk did not file his notice of appeal until February 23, 2010, the day after the Common Pleas judge to whom this matter was assigned approved his poverty affidavit.
{¶3} The hearing officer who conducted Mr. Harris's administrative hearing completed an affidavit on May 11, 2010, in which she asserted that she had not, as of that date, received a copy of Mr. Harris's notice of appeal. The City moved to dismiss Mr. Harris's attempted appeal to the Common Pleas Court, arguing that he had failed to timely file his notice of appeal with either the hearing officer or the Common Pleas Court. The Common Pleas Court granted the City's motion, and Mr. Harris has appealed.
DISCUSSION
{¶4} Mr. Harris has argued that the Common Pleas Court incorrectly determined that he failed to timely perfect his appeal to that court. He has focused his argument on the Common Pleas Clerk's failure to accept his notice of appeal for filing at the same time he completed his poverty affidavit.
{¶5} Section 2505.07 of the Ohio Revised Code requires a party wishing to appeal an administrative decision to perfect his appeal within 30 days after the administrative body enters that decision. Under Section 2505.04 of the Ohio Revised Code, a party perfects an administrative appeal by filing "a written notice of appeal . . . with the administrative officer,agency, board, department, tribunal, commission, or other instrumentality involved." Although the person attempting to appeal does not have to use a particular method to deliver his notice of appeal to the administrative body, "[f]iling does not occur until there is actual receipt by the agency within the time prescribed by R.C. 2505.07." Welsh Dev. Co. Inc. v. Warren County Reg'l Planning Comm'n, 128 Ohio St. 3d 471, 2011-Ohio-1604, at ¶18, 39.
{¶6} In this case, the City presented evidence, in the form of the hearing officer's affidavit, that, as of May 11, 2010, 132 days after the hearing officer issued her decision, Mr. Harris had still not caused a copy of his notice of appeal to be delivered to her. Mr. Harris has not disputed the City's evidence regarding his failure to cause a copy of his notice of appeal to be timely delivered to the hearing officer. Regardless of whether the clerk of courts should have taken his notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial