Opinion ID: 1277007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did All Star Act Reasonably?

Text: ¶ 42 If a party were forced to rely solely on Wis. Stat. § 227.53 and other Chapter 227 sections to determine whom to name and serve, we could understand the party's uncertainty. Considered alone, § 227.53 is a bit confusing. Considered in the context of Chapter 227 as a whole, the statute's directive on how to obtain judicial review becomes even more confusing. ¶ 43 All Star was not cast adrift without a life raft, however. It was given specific notice of how to obtain judicial review, as required by Wis. Stat. § 227.48(2). DHA appended a NOTICE to its decision identifying the agency to be named as respondent and requiring that the petition be filed and served. We must consider whether the DHA Notice was clear and whether All Star's decision to name and serve only DOT was reasonable given this Notice. ¶ 44 Even if a procedural statute is ambiguous, the party who invokes the ambiguity to justify non-compliance must demonstrate that its action was reasonable under the circumstances. See State ex rel. Grzelak v. Bertrand, 2003 WI 102, ¶ 29, 263 Wis.2d 678, 696, 665 N.W.2d 244; Peterson, 226 Wis.2d at 633, 594 N.W.2d 765. Because the facts are not in dispute, we decide as a matter of law whether All Star's action was reasonable. Coleman, 2006 WI 49, ¶ 17, ___ Wis.2d ___, 714 N.W.2d 900. Whether All Star's action was reasonable turns on whether the Notice that DHA appended to its decision was clear. We believe that it was. ¶ 45 Although All Star raised a host of statutorily based arguments for why its failure to name and serve DHA as the respondent was reasonable, they are not convincing and cannot defeat the clear directive provided by the Notice: Any petition for judicial review shall name the Division of Hearings and Appeals as the respondent. All Star did not name or serve DHA. Instead, All Star named and served DOT. [9] ¶ 46 We have repeatedly exhorted administrative agencies to include with their decisions clear notices explaining the procedures that must be followed to obtain judicial review. See e.g., Grzelak, 263 Wis.2d 678, ¶ 24, 665 N.W.2d 244; McDonough, 227 Wis.2d at 283, 595 N.W.2d 686; Peterson, 226 Wis.2d at 634-35, 594 N.W.2d 765; Sunnyview Village, 104 Wis.2d at 412, 311 N.W.2d 632. More important, the legislature requires administrative agencies to afford this notice. Wis. Stat. § 227.48(2). ¶ 47 When an agency appends a notice to its decision and the notice clearly directs a party how to appeal, the notice should remove any confusion created by the statutes about whom to name and serve. See Peterson, 226 Wis.2d at 634-35, 594 N.W.2d 765. ¶ 48 In this case, the Notice clearly stated the decision was a decision of the Division and that the purpose of the Notice was to describe how All Star could obtain review. All Star could either (1) pursue administrative review, asking DHA to rehear the case; or (2) pursue judicial review. All Star chose the latter, obligating it to follow the procedures set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Notice supplied by DHA. ¶ 49 To seek judicial review, the Notice clearly directed All Star to (1) serve and file a petition for review ... within (thirty) 30 days after final disposition by operation of law[;] (2) name the Division of Hearings and Appeals as the respondent[;] and (3) closely examine all provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 227.52 and 227.53 to insure strict compliance with all its requirements. ¶ 50 The Notice did not explicitly state that All Star had to name and serve  DHA, but there can be no doubt that the Notice required All Star to serve DHA. First, the Notice directed All Star to name DHA as the respondent. As a matter of both logic and common sense, a party who is named as respondent should also be served. Second, the fact that the Notice did not contain the exact phrase, shall name and serve the Division of Hearings and Appeals as respondent, does not render the Notice unclear. The Notice provided: any party seeking judicial review shall serve and file a petition for review . . . . Upon reading this statement, the natural question is: Whom must be served? The very next sentence answers this question because it directs the party to name the Division of Hearings and Appeals as the respondent. ¶ 51 Given the direct and clear nature of the Notice, the policy concerns raised in Grzelak and Sunnyview Village are not implicated. In both cases, we stated, it is important that citizens not be defeated in their redress of grievances by the maze of governmental entities. A person aggrieved by an administrative decision should not have to guess which governmental entity to name and serve as the respondent in proceedings for judicial review. Grzelak, 263 Wis.2d 678, ¶ 24, 665 N.W.2d 244; Sunnyview Village, 104 Wis.2d at 412, 311 N.W.2d 632. DHA's Notice should have removed any guesswork from determining which government entity to name and serve as respondent. Once the Notice identified DHA as the entity whom the petitioner was required to name as respondent, the petitioner was given guidance on how to read Wis. Stat. §§ 227.52, 227.53, and the entire statutory scheme. By clearly stating that DHA is the respondent, the Notice clarified any statutory ambiguity in § 227.53 as to the identity of the respondent. The Notice was a directive: any petition shall name DHA; it was not an invitation to search for ambiguity throughout Chapter 227. The fact that All Star failed to follow the directive is the fault of All Star, not DHA. ¶ 52 Faced with the choice between winding its way through a labyrinth of statutory sections and the Notice's clear order to name DHA as the respondent, All Star chose to disregard the Notice. All Star's decision was not reasonable or logical under the circumstances. It may not have been unreasonable to name DOT as a respondent because All Star was required to serve DOT under Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1)(c). But it was not reasonable to ignore the directive in the Notice to name and serve DHA as respondent. Accordingly, the circuit court properly determined that it lacked competency to hear All Star's petition. ¶ 53 Although this result may seem harsh, strict compliance with procedural requirements is necessary to maintain a simple, orderly, and uniform way of conducting legal business in our courts. 519 Corp. v. DOT, 92 Wis.2d 276, 288, 284 N.W.2d 643 (1979).