Court Opinion

ID: 9526590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:20:31.006539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:42.597748
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting opinion.
I respectfully dissent. The amended statute requiring an appeal bond, which does not specify temporal limitations, must be read in conjunction with the statute requiring appeals from administrative decisions to "be taken within thirty (80) days" after the decision. The existence of time limitations constitutes a paramount tenant of appellate procedure. An aggrieved party may not sit idly by and determine the moment when initiation of an appeal is suitable. Without time frames, a party could wait years to determine that a previous wrong should be addressed by a reviewing court.
In the present case, the majority acknowledges a party must initiate an appeal within the 30-day time period, but insists that the statutes do not establish a time frame within which to file the appeal bond. The appeal bond is a component of initiating the appeal. Preparation of the record depends upon the appeal bond, and review depends upon the record. Thus, I believe the decisions in Fleming and Shirk are fully applicable to the statutes as amended. The failure to file an appeal bond within the 30 days to initiate the appeal is fatal.
I would vote to affirm the trial court's decision.