Opinion ID: 1776306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the court of appeals misconceived the procedure for the taking of an appeal from an action by a planning commission.

Text: These issues are so interrelated that we will consider and dispose of them collectively. The Complaint and Appeal which formulates the subject of these issues names the Bourbon County Joint Planning Commission as a defendant as well as naming each member of the Commission individually as a defendant. Summons was issued for and served on each member of the Commission. No summons, however, was issued for the Commission in its official capacity. On August 9, 1979, the Commission and each member thereof filed a joint answer to the Complaint and Appeal. This answer sought to uphold the action of the Commission and also put in issue the charge of arbitrariness and capriciousness. The subject action is twofold: (1) it is a direct appeal from the action of the Commission, and (2) it is an original action charging abuse of discretion and arbitrariness. Only the propriety of the appeal to the circuit court has been challenged. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky held that a failure to have a summons issued for the Commission was fatal to the appeal. We do not construe the failure to have summons issued for the Commission so narrowly. KRS 100.347 provides: Appeals from commission or board of adjustment.  Any appeal from commission action may be taken in the following manner: (1) Any person or entity claiming to be injured or aggrieved by any final action of the planning commission or board of adjustments may appeal from the action to the circuit court of the county in which the land lies. Such appeal shall be taken within thirty (30) days after the final action of the commission or board. Final action shall not include commission's recommendations made to other governmental bodies. (2) All appeals shall be taken in the appropriate circuit court within thirty (30) days after the action or decision of the planning commission or board of adjustments and all decisions which have not been appealed within thirty (30) days shall become final. After the appeal is taken the procedure shall be governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. When an appeal has been filed, the clerk of the circuit court shall issue a summons to all parties, including the planning commission in all cases, and shall cause it to be delivered for service as in any other law action. (Emphasis added). In Board of Adjustments of City of Richmond v. Flood, Ky., 581 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1979), this court wrote: There is no appeal to the courts from an action of an administrative agency as a matter of right. When grace to appeal is granted by statute, a strict compliance with its terms is required. Where the conditions for the exercise of power by a court are not met, the judicial power is not lawfully invoked. That is to say, that the court lacks jurisdiction or has no right to decide the controversy. Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation, Ky., 361 S.W.2d 300 (1962); Roberts v. Watts, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 513 (1953). The question is should the Complaint and Appeal be considered filed even though no summons issued. The civil rules do not apply in this type of litigation until after the appeal has been perfected. Board of Adjustments of City of Richmond v. Flood, supra, at page 2. The irony of this issue is that a summons may not be issued until after the appeal is filed; consequently, the issuance of a summons cannot under the statute constitute an essential element in the filing of the appeal. It is a condition subsequent to the filing; it is procedural and not jurisdictional. However much the Rules of Civil Procedure deal with civil appeals, we are not at liberty to consider them for guidance in determining when the appeal, insofar as it affects the Commission, should be considered filed. Our answer to this issue must therefore come from some other source. In 1 C.J.S. Actions, Sec. 129, it is written: An action may be commenced without the issuance of the original process, where defendant voluntarily appears and makes a defense; but such appearance has no retrospective effect. In 62 Am.Jur.2d Process, Sec. 157, it is written: A defendant may set up in abatement of the action against him a defense raising a question of the jurisdiction of the court for want of sufficient process, irregularity in service, or the like, if he does so before making a general appearance. It has long been held by this court that any objection which might have been urged to a process is waived by pleading to the merits. Withers v. Reed, 7 Ky. 258, 4 Bibb 258 (1815). We are of the opinion that the salutary purpose of having a summons issued and served on the Commission has been fully satisfied by its action in extensively participating in this litigation. In other words, the Commission has entered its appearance and waived the service of summons. So much of the decision of the Court of Appeals as affirms the action of the Bourbon Circuit Court in dismissing Green's Complaint and Appeal is reversed; so much thereof as denies an injunction is affirmed. The judgment of the Bourbon Circuit Court in granting a summary judgment in favor of Grissom and dismissing Green's Complaint and Appeal is reversed. This action is remanded to the Bourbon Circuit Court for further proceedings in keeping with this opinion. All concur except O'HARA, J., who did not vote as he did not participate in the argument nor the conference.