Williams v. Drabik
| Decision Date | 17 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96APE05-714,96APE05-714 |
| Citation | 115 Ohio App.3d 295,685 N.E.2d 293 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. DRABIK, Dir., Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Appellee. Tenth District, Franklin County |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Daniel J. Allen; Barkan & Barkan Co., L.P.A., and Neal J. Barkan, Columbus, for appellant.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Christopher S. Cook, Columbus, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing an R.C. 119.12 appeal as untimely filed. Appellant, Brenda Williams, raises the following single assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in sustaining the defendant's motion to dismiss the appellant's administrative appeal."
The relevant facts are as follows. Appellant applied for disability benefits. Her application was ultimately denied on October 16, 1995. Notice of the adjudication order was mailed on October 17, 1995 and received by appellant on October 21, 1995. On November 3, 1996, seventeen days after the notice was mailed, appellant filed a notice of appeal with both the trial court and with appellee, Ohio Department of Administrative Services ("ODAS"). ODAS moved to dismiss her appeal, claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction as a result of appellant's failure to comply with the fifteen-day time limit. The trial court sustained that motion and dismissed the appeal.
Appellant's notices of appeal were filed seventeen days after the mailing of appellee's adjudication order, but thirteen days after appellant had received the adjudication order. R.C. 119.12 requires that "such notices of appeal shall be filed within fifteen days after the mailing of the notice of the agency's order." Thus, appellant's notices of appeal must be filed within fifteen days after the mailing of the notice of the adjudication order. Hart v. Bd. of Liquor Control (1953), 96 Ohio App. 128, 121 N.E.2d 257; Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1989), 64 Ohio App.3d 113, 580 N.E.2d 832.
This court has long held that "[t]he provisions of [R.C. 119.12] relating to the time for filing a notice of appeal are mandatory, and if a notice of appeal is not filed within the time fixed by law, the appeal will be dismissed." Arndt v. Scott (App.1955), 72 Ohio Law Abs. 189, 134 N.E.2d 82, headnote one. "[C]ompliance with the requirements as to the filing of the notice of appeal--the time of filing, the place of filing and the content of the notice as specified in the statute--are all conditions precedent to jurisdiction." Zier v. Bur. of Unemp. Comp. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 123, 127, 84 N.E.2d 746, 748.
There simply is no way that the trial court had any jurisdiction to do anything other than dismiss the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tsiperson v. Ohio Dep't of Commerce Div. of Fin. Inst.
...the content of the notice as specified in the statute — are all conditions precedent to jurisdiction.'" Williams v. Drabik, 115 Ohio App.3d 295, 296, 685 N.E.2d 293 (10th Dist.1996), quoting Zier v. Bur. of Unemp. Comp., 151 Ohio St. 123, 127, 84 N.E.2d 746 (1949). {¶18} R.C. 119.12 require......
-
Total Office Products v. Department of Administrative Services, No. 05AP-955 (Ohio App. 6/29/2006)
...to the time, place and manner of filing the notice of appeal are conditions precedent to jurisdiction. Williams v. Drabik (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 295, 296, 685 N.E.2d 293, citing Zier v. Bureau of Unemp. Comp. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 123, 127, 84 N.E.2d 746. Thus, in this case, the Franklin Co......
-
Amoako v. Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd.
...over the appeal. Coleman v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-869, 20i3-Ohio-2073, ¶ 11. See also Williams v. Drabik, 115 Ohio App.3d 295, 296 (10th Dist.1996) (holding that compliance with the requirements of R.C. 119.12, including the time of filing, is a condition precedent to jur......
-
Friedman v. McClelland
...and the content of the notice as specified in the statute are all conditions precedent to jurisdiction. Williams v. Drabik, 115 Ohio App.3d 295, 296, 685 N.E.2d 293 (10th Dist.1996), citing Zier v. Bur. of Unemp. Comp., 151 Ohio St. 123, 127, 84 N.E.2d 746 (1949). However,"[i]f the venue pr......