Case Title: Antelope Valley Imp. v. State Bd. of Equalization for State of Wyo.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1999-12-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Antelope Valley Imp. v. State Bd. of Equalization for State of Wyo.1999 WY 165992 P.2d 563Case Number: 98-352Decided: 12/09/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming

ANTELOPE VALLEY IMPROVEMENT AND SERVICE DISTRICT OF 
GILLETTE, Appellant(Petitioner),

v.

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION FOR 
THE STATE OF WYOMING;

and THE WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF 
REVENUE, Appellees (Respondents).

 

                                

Appeal from the District Court 
of Laramie County, Honorable

Nicholas G. Kalokathis, 
Judge.

   

 

James L. Edwards of Stevens, 
Edwards & Hallock, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming, representing 
Appellant.

 Jay A. Jerde, Assistant Attorney General, 
representing Appellee Wyoming Department of Revenue.  Appearing for but not heard on behalf of 
the Wyoming State Board of Equalization (for the reasons set forth in the 
opinion):Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Harry D. Ivey, Assistant 
Attorney General, 

 

     Before LEHMAN, 
C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and HILL, JJ.

 

     Golden, 
Justice.

    
[¶1]     Antelope Valley Improvement and Service 
District of Gillette (Antelope Valley) applied to the Department of Revenue 
(Department) for a sales and use tax exemption in 1997. The Department denied 
the application by final decision letter dated October 15, 1997, and Antelope 
Valley filed its appeal November 17, 
1997. The Board of Equalization (Board) dismissed the appeal as untimely filed, 
and Antelope Valley appealed to the district court, which affirmed the decision 
of the Board.

 

   [¶2]     In its appeal before this Court, 
Antelope Valley argues the Board's rule concerning filing of appeals violates 
due process because it does not require actual notice before the time for appeal 
begins to run. Antelope Valley also contends the Board's decision was not 
supported by substantial evidence. The Board applied its properly promulgated 
rules, which have the force and effect of law, and its decision is supported by 
substantial evidence. There is no evidence in the record that Antelope Valley 
did not have an opportunity to respond and be heard.  Absent that evidence, due process is not 
implicated. Therefore, we affirm the decisions of the district court and the 
Board.

 

              
                  ISSUES

 

     [¶3]  Antelope Valley presents this statement 
of the issues for review:

 

I. Did the Board of Equalization have sufficient 
evidence upon which to base its decision?

 

II. Did the district court improperly affirm the 
Board of Equalization's dismissal of the appeal of Antelope 
Valley?

 

   The Department of Revenue presents 
these issues:

 

I. Whether the Wyoming State Board of Equalization 
acted in accordance with law when it dismissed the appeal of Antelope Valley 
with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

 

II. Whether the Wyoming State Board of Equalization 
acted contrary to constitutional right when it dismissed the appeal of Antelope 
Valley with prejudice for lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction.

 

                                 
FACTS

 

   [¶4]     By letter dated October 15, 1997, the 
Department denied a request by Antelope Valley for a sales and use tax 
exemption.  The letter notified 
Antelope Valley that it was a final administrative decision subject to appeal to 
the Board "within thirty (30) days of this notice date." Antelope Valley filed a 
case notice of appeal with the Board on November 17, 1997. After reviewing the 
notice, the Board issued a notice of its intent to dismiss the appeal with 
prejudice because the appeal was untimely filed. After accepting briefs from 
both parties and affidavits from Department employees on the timeliness issue, 
the Board issued its decision that it was without jurisdiction to hear the 
appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely filed.

 

    [¶5]  Antelope Valley timely filed a petition 
for review of the order of dismissal with the district court, and the district 
court affirmed the Board's order. Antelope Valley now appeals to this Court 
seeking review of the order of dismissal.

 

                              
DISCUSSION

 

   
Standard of Review

 

   [¶6]     In reviewing an administrative agency 
decision on appeal, this Court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action 
found to be:  (1) arbitrary, 
capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) 
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; (3) without 
observance of procedure required by law; or (4) unsupported by substantial 
evidence. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), (B), (D) and (E) (LEXIS 1999). 
Antelope Valley contends the Board's decision was not supported by substantial 
evidence.  Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of an agency's 
conclusion so long as it is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. Cronk v. 
City of Cody, 897 P.2d 476, 478 (Wyo. 1995).

 

   [¶7]     When reviewing an agency decision which 
has been considered by the district court, we give no deference to the district 
court's determination. Squillace v. Wyo. State Employees' & Officials' Group 
Ins. Bd. of Admin., 933 P.2d 488, 490 (Wyo. 1997). Using the same evidentiary 
materials and the same standard of review as the district court, we inquire into 
the matter as if it had proceeded directly to us from the agency. Id.  We review an agency's conclusions of law 
to determine whether they are in accordance with the law; if they are not, we 
correct the error in either stating or applying the law. Id. at 491. When the 
determination before us is a mixed question of fact and law, we defer to an 
agency's findings of basic fact but correct misapplication of the law to those 
facts. Aanenson v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Compensation Div., 842 P.2d 1077, 
1080 (Wyo. 1992) (quoting Union Pacific 
R.R. Co. v. State Bd. Of Equalization, 802 P.2d 856, 860-61 (Wyo. 
1990)).

 

   
The Board's Rule

 

   [¶8]     Chapter 2, Section 5 (Section 5) of the 
Rules and Regulations of the Wyoming State Board of Equalization (1995) (Board 
Rule) establishes the time period for filing an appeal with the Board from a 
final administrative decision of the Department. Section 5 
provides:

 

(a)  
Cases may be instituted by any petitioner who files a case notice for 
review of any final administrative decision of the Department with the Board c/o 
executive secretary. . . . Unless otherwise required by law, the case notice 
shall be filed with the Board within thirty (30) days             of the date 
of the final administrative decision at issue.

 

(b)  
"Computation of Time" - In computing the time period for filing a case 
notice, the period shall begin on the day after the date of the final 
administrative decision and shall conclude on the last day of such computed 
period, unless such day is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, in which event 
the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, 
Sunday nor a legal holiday.

 

(c)  
"Filed with the Board" - The case shall be considered filed with the 
Board upon mailing of the case notice as evidenced by a postmark, or upon 
receipt by fax. Any case notice not timely filed shall be 
dismissed.

 

   [¶9]     Subsection (c) of the Board Rule 
requires the Board to dismiss "any case notice not timely filed," and the Board 
applied the rule when it determined it did not have jurisdiction to hear 
Antelope Valley's appeal. Rules adopted pursuant to statutory authority and 
properly promulgated have the force and effect of law. Fullmer v. Employment Security Comm'n, 858 P.2d 1122, 1123-24 (Wyo. 1993). An administrative agency must follow its own rules 
and regulations.Id. at 1124. To determine if the case was not timely filed, we 
must interpret Section 5 of the Board Rules.

 

   [¶10]  Rules of statutory interpretation apply 
to the interpretation of administrative rules and regulations. Glover v. State, 
860 P.2d 1169, 1173 (Wyo. 1993). If the language of the rule communicates a 
plain meaning, that meaning will be applied.  Zmijewski v. Wright, 809 P.2d 280, 282 
(Wyo. 1991). Section 5(a) provides that a petitioner must file a case notice of 
appeal with the Board "within thirty (30) days of the date of the final 
administrative decision at issue." Board Rule, Ch. 2 § 5 (1995).1 Section 5(b) provides that the time 
period shall begin on the day after the date of the final administrative 
decision.Id.

 

   [¶11]  The unambiguous language of Section 5 
dictates that the time period for filing a case notice of appeal begins to run 
on the day after the date of the decision and ends thirty days later.  Antelope Valley contends the Department 
did not provide evidence that it mailed the decision letter on the date of the 
letter. However, the Board Rule does not contemplate use of the date the letter 
was mailed. Rather, the only relevant date under the rule is the date of the 
final administrative decision.

 

   [¶12]  The Department denied Antelope Valley's 
exemption request by letter dated October 15, 1997. The time period for filing 
the appeal of that decision began to run on Thursday, October 16, 1997, and 
ended on Friday, November 14, 1997. The case notice of appeal was post marked 
November 17, 1997. Therefore, Antelope Valley did not file its case notice 
within the time period required by the Board's Rule. Timely filing of a request 
for administrative review of an agency decision is mandatory and jurisdictional. 
Fullmer, 858 P.2d  at 1124. Antelope Valley's untimely filing of its case notice 
of appeal deprived the Board of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The 
Board did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and dismissal was 
appropriate.

 

   
Due Process

 

   [¶13]  Antelope Valley argues that it was 
denied due process because it did not have the benefit of the full thirty days 
provided for in the rule to respond. However, nothing in the unambiguous 
language of Section 5 provides for the running of the appeal period from the 
date of mailing or the date of receipt of notice as opposed to the date on which 
the Department rendered its decision. A rule that provides thirty days after the 
date of the decision to file an appeal does not entitle the recipient to file 
the appeal thirty days after actual notice of the 
decision.

 

   [¶14]  As long as a party is afforded a 
reasonable opportunity to respond to a ruling and to appeal, due process is not 
violated.  Jones v. Jones, 903 P.2d 545, 548 (Wyo. 1995). "Due process merely affords the opportunity to be heard." 
Id.  Antelope Valley does not 
contend it did not have time to respond in this case. Absent allegations that 
Antelope Valley was denied a reasonable opportunity to respond to the 
Department's decision, due process is not implicated. Here, Antelope Valley 
received all the notice required by law and did not demonstrate any prejudice or 
harm. See Palmer v. Crook County Sch. Dist. 1, 785 P.2d 1160, 1163 (Wyo. 1990). 
The Board's determination that the case notice was untimely filed was in 
accordance with law.

 

   
Proper Parties to Appeal

 

   [¶15]  The Wyoming State Board of Equalization 
filed a brief with this Court as an appellee in this matter. We find no 
authority for an adjudicatory body to file briefs as if it were a party to the 
action. "Generally a court or board exercising judicial or quasi judicial 
functions, not being a party to its proceedings, and not having any legal 
interest in maintaining its determination, can neither appeal from a judgment or 
order of a court reversing the proceedings nor be heard on the appeal." 4 C.J.S. 
Appeal and Error § 175 (1993).

 

    [¶16] As we noted in Basin 
Electric, the legislature was clear in its mandate that the Board and the 
Department have separate and distinct duties. Basin Elec. Power Co-op., Inc. v. 
State of Wyo. Department of Revenue, 970 P.2d 841, 849 (Wyo. 1998). "With the 
Wyoming Government Reorganization Act, the legislature created two separate 
entities with separate duties and responsibilities.  See Wyo. Stat. § 39-1-301 (Cum. Supp. 
1993) and 9-2-2007 (1997)." Id.  As 
a result of the reorganization, the Department is completely separate from the 
Board. Amax Coal Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 819 P.2d 825, 833 (Wyo. 
1991). "The resulting functional division of the Department to generally 
disconnect executive department tax collection activities from the rule making 
and review function retained by the State Board of Equalization provides a 
justification for differentiation of rights of appeal by the Department for 
judicial review. . . ." Id.  The Department has been granted the 
authority to appeal an adverse decision of the Board. Id. (citing Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 39-1-306 (1991)). "The Board has authority to hear contested cases and to 
promulgate rules and regulations pursuant to the WAPA. Any other exercise of 
authority violates the clear intent of the legislature." Basin Electric, 970 P.2d  at 849.

   

    [¶17] In Basin Electric we 
also held that the Platte County Board of Commissioners lacked standing to 
appeal from the Board's decision because a board is not a "person" as defined 
under the tax statutes and the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act. Id. at 
848. Similarly, the Board of Equalization lacks standing to submit an appellate 
brief with this Court. The appeal from a board decision "is merely a 
continuation of those proceedings [board's] in an appellate tribunal.'" Anita 
Ditch Co. v. Turner, 389 P.2d 1018, 1021 (Wyo. 1964) (quoting Willey v. Decker, 
11 Wyo. 496, 73 P. 210, 227 (1903)). "[A]ny person who is not a party in an 
original action is not a necessary party to an appeal. . . ." Id. at 1022. 
Clearly, the Board was not a party to the original action and cannot be a party 
to this appeal. The proper parties to this appeal are Antelope Valley, as the 
"interested person adversely affected," and the Department of Revenue, whose 
decision was appealed to the Board. Therefore, we strike the Board's brief and 
have not considered it in our decision in this matter.

 

                              
CONCLUSION

 

   [¶18]  The Board of Equalization properly found 
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the appeal was not 
timely filed in accordance with the Board's Rule. Antelope Valley does not 
contend it did not have a reasonable opportunity to respond to the decision of 
the Department of Revenue; therefore, due process concerns were not implicated. 
Finally, the Board of Equalization was the adjudicatory authority below and is 
not a proper party to an appeal from its own decision.

     

 

FOOTNOTES

1On July 
12, 1999, this section was amended, adding "or upon the date of mailing of the 
final administrative decision as evidenced by a postmark, whichever is 
later."  Board Rules, Ch. 2, § 5 
(1999). However, we apply the rules in effect at the time of the appeal at 
issue.