To view the contents of this post, you must be authenticated and have the required access level.

To view the contents of this post, you must be authenticated and have the required access level.

To view the contents of this post, you must be authenticated and have the required access level.

To view the contents of this post, you must be authenticated and have the required access level.

To view the contents of this post, you must be authenticated and have the required access level.

To view the contents of this post, you must be authenticated and have the required access level.

To view the contents of this post, you must be authenticated and have the required access level.

To view the contents of this post, you must be authenticated and have the required access level.

The Franklin County Court of Appeals on June 18 rendered a decision in which the common pleas court dismissed a permit holder’s appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Because the permit holder failed to strictly comply with the provisions of the statute authorizing appeals from an order of administrative agencies, and did not timely file its appeal, the court dismissed the appeal.
The statute mandates a permit holder appeal an order of the Liquor Control Commission “within twenty-one days after the mailing of the notice of the commission’s order … .” The notice of appeal must be filed with the commission and the common pleas court. A recent amendment to the Ohio Revised Code authorizes permit holders to appeal from an order issued by the commission “to the court of common pleas of Franklin County or the court of common pleas in the county in which the place of business of the licensee is located or the county in which the licensee is a resident … .”
In case you are interested, the permit holder was found in violation of furnishing alcohol to an underage person and allowing people to engage in disorderly activities and engage in sexual activities in and upon the permit premises. In two separate orders, the commission ordered the permit holder to pay a $2,000 and a $10,000 forfeiture or the permit would be revoked.
The orders specified, in detail, the permit holder’s rights of appeal. The permit holder timely filed a Notice of Appeal with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, although the permit holder mailed its notice of appeal to the commission by certified mail, which was not timely served on the commission.
The common pleas court ruled
“(f)ailure to file a notice of appeal within period provided … deprives the common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal.” Subject-matter jurisdiction is the requirement that a court has the statutory authority to hear the specific kind of claim that is brought to that court. Specifically, “(d)epositing the notice of appeal in the mail does not constitute a filing …. To be timely filed, a notice of appeal must be received within the period set for in (the statute).”
Because the commission did not receive the notice of appeal “within 21 days after it mailed the underlying orders,” the commission filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The permit holder argued “that it had complied with the statutory requirements for perfecting its appeal, citing telephone calls and emails to the commission asking about an extension to the 21-day deadline purportedly informing the commission that (the permit holder) ‘would appeal’ the commission orders.” The permit holder additionally filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for relief from judgment.
The court of appeals cited case law holding a “party appealing an administrative order must strictly comply with the jurisdictional filing requirements prescribed in (the statute) and failure to comply with the time requirements for filing a notice of appeal deprives the common pleas court of jurisdiction.”
The court of appeals’ decision further considered the permit holder’s motions for reconsideration and motion for relief from judgment and rejected both motions.
Because the permit holder failed to strictly comply with the mandatory provisions of the statutes to invoke the common pleas court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the permit holder was unable to argue the merits of its appeal.
It is extremely important to thoroughly read the pertinent statutes and strictly comply with all mandates so when you are adversely affected by an agency’s order you can have your day in court.

Dave Raber is a partner with the Columbus law firm of Lumpe, Raber & Evans and general counsel for the Wholesale Beer & Wine Association of Ohio.

To view the contents of this post, you must be authenticated and have the required access level.