Title: Jordan v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Jordan v. State  (96-196); 166 Vt. 509; 702 A.2d 58

[Filed 3-Jul-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 96-196

Kevin and Andrew Jordan                      Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Franklin Superior Court

State of Vermont, Agency of                  January Term, 1997
Transportation

Linda Levitt, J.

Colleen Conti, Underhill, for plaintiffs-appellants

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Scott A. Whitted, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee

PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ. and Allen, C.J.
  (Ret.), Specially Assigned (FN1)

       GIBSON, J.   Kevin and Andrew Jordan appeal an order of Franklin
  Superior Court dismissing their petition for review of an Agency of
  Transportation (AOT) fuel-tax assessment. The Jordans argue that the court
  erred in ruling that they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies
  because they did not attend the administrative hearing where their appeal
  was initially considered.  We agree that failure to attend an
  administrative proceeding does not necessarily preclude judicial review of
  an agency action, and remand for a de novo hearing on the fuel-tax
  assessment.

       The basic facts are not in dispute.  In August 1995, AOT informed the
  Jordans by mail that a business audit indicated they owed $15,179 in fuel
  taxes, interest, and penalties.  The letter included notice that
  administrative appeal was available but must be requested within thirty

 

  days or they would lose their right to judicial review.  The Jordans
  submitted a timely notice of appeal to AOT, which scheduled a hearing for
  September 1995.  Following two postponements at the Jordans' request, a
  hearing was scheduled for November 28, 1995.  The Jordans failed to appear
  on the day of the hearing, and on December 1, 1995, AOT informed the
  Jordans that it had found the amount of the assessment, interest, and
  penalty to be proper.

       In January 1996, the Jordans filed a petition for de novo hearing of
  the assessment in Franklin Superior Court pursuant to 23 V.S.A. § 3023. 
  Two months later the court granted AOT's motion to dismiss, holding that
  the Jordans had failed to fully exhaust their administrative remedies
  because they had not attended the November hearing, and consequently had
  lost their right to judicial review of the assessment.  This appeal
  followed.

       A party's failure to exhaust administrative remedies permits a court
  to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  DiLaura v.
  Power Auth. of N.Y., 982 F.2d 73, 79 (2d Cir. 1992); 5A C. Wright & A.
  Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350, at 194-95 (1990).  Dismissal
  for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), is reviewed
  de novo, with all uncontroverted factual allegations of the complaint
  accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
  party.  See Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1990); cf.
  Reynolds v. Sullivan, 136 Vt. 1, 3,