Hayes v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 14381
Decision Date | 01 June 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 14381,14381 |
Citation | 94 Ohio App.3d 597,641 N.E.2d 277 |
Parties | HAYES, Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Konrad Kuczak, Dayton, for appellant.
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Pros. Atty. and Marcell N. Dezarn, Asst. Pros. Atty., Dayton, for appellee.
Plaintiff Gail A. Hayes appeals from the order of the common pleas court dismissing her complaint in that court, which was an appeal from a decision of the State Personnel Board of Review ("board") affirming the termination of Hayes's employment by Defendant Montgomery County Board of Commissioners.
The trial court dismissed Hayes's complaint on a finding that she had failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 119.12, which provides for appeals to the common pleas court from orders of administrative agencies.
Hayes presents three assignments of error on appeal. The first and second assignments are essentially the same, and argue that the trial court erred in its interpretation of R.C. 119.12. The third assignment argues that the record fails to support the court's determination. We shall address the first and second assignments of error together.
The facts on which the court based its order are not in dispute.
On September 10, 1993, the State Personnel Board of Review affirmed the termination of Hayes's employment and ordered that a copy of its order be served upon her. On September 27, 1993, Hayes filed her notice of appeal with the board. On September 30, 1993, Hayes filed a copy of that notice of appeal with the common pleas court, attaching it to her complaint in that court.
R.C. 119.12 provides, inter alia:
* * * "
The notice of appeal filed with the board was timely filed; the fifteenth day was a Saturday, extending the deadline to the following Monday, September 27, 1993, when the notice was filed. A copy of the notice was not filed in the common pleas court within that time, and was not in fact filed there until September 30, twenty days after it was mailed by the board.
The trial court held that the requirements of R.C. 119.12 are jurisdictional, both as to the notice of appeal filed with the agency and the copy of the notice filed with the court, and that failure to file both within fifteen days after mailing of the order appealed from is a bar to that court's appellate jurisdiction.
In arriving at its holding, the trial court relied on a statement of this court in In re Gavin (Nov. 5, 1981), Montgomery App. No. 7210, unreported, 1981 WL 5334, which concerned when the fifteen-day period began. We stated: "In the absence of any evidence as to the date of mailing of the agency order, appellant had fifteen days from (the date she received the order) in which to file her appeal with the agency and the common pleas court." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 5.
We cannot disagree with the trial court's application of our statement in Gavin to the facts of this case. Neither do we disagree that R.C. 119.12 is jurisdictional. However, we believe that our statement in Gavin was in error, to the extent that it held that filing a copy of the notice with the common pleas court is a jurisdictional factor. We now conclude that the only requirement to invoke the jurisdiction of that court is the timely filing of a notice of appeal with the agency concerned.
Section 4(B), Article IV of the Constitution of Ohio states:
"The courts of common pleas and divisions thereof shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters and such powers of review of proceedings of administrative officers and agencies as may be provided by law."
R.C. Chapter 119, the Ohio Administrative Procedure Act, governs proceedings before administrative agencies. R.C. 119.12 provides for appeals from agency orders to the courts of common pleas, and sets out the further requirements on the agency after an appeal is taken.
R.C. Chapter 2505 governs procedure on appeal. R.C. 2505.03 provides for appeals to the common pleas courts, as well as to the courts of appeals and to the Supreme Court, when provided by law. R.C. 2505.03(B) states:
With respect to the procedure to perfect an appeal, R.C. 2505.04 states:
(Emphasis added.)
This procedure is consistent with that set out in App.R. 3(A), which states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nibert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
...common pleas court, is necessary to confer subject matter jurisdiction. Such was the case in Hayes v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 597, 641 N.E.2d 277, where the court held that the failure to file a copy of the notice of appeal was not a jurisdictional defect. Rath......
-
Harrison v. Ohio State Med. Bd.
...for in R.C. 119.12 is a jurisdictional defect. Arndt, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus; Hayes v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 597, 600, 641 N.E.2d 277, 279. Thus, the court of common pleas did not have jurisdiction to hear appellant's R.C. 119.12 appeal because ......
-
Namey, In re, 94APE09-1386
...order file a copy of that notice of appeal with the court of common pleas, is not jurisdictional. Hayes v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 597, 641 N.E.2d 277. The analysis in the Hayes case is helpful in the instant action, because appellee sets forth an argument rega......
-
Pole v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 2009 Ohio 5021 (Ohio App. 9/24/2009)
...App. 3d 317, 322, citing Arndt v. Scott (App.1955), 72 Ohio Law Abs. 189, paragraph one of the syllabus; Hayes v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 597, 600. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the power conferred on a court to decide a particular matter on its merits and ren......