Amoako v. Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd.
2014 Ohio 801
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Amoako, dba Ohio Auto Center, appeals the Board's revocation of his used motor vehicle dealer license.
- Board held a formal hearing on 11/29/2012; adjudication order revoked license effective 1/29/2013; mailed 1/4/2013.
- Amoako filed a notice of appeal with the trial court on 1/17/2013 but did not file with the Board until 1/25/2013.
- Board moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under R.C. 119.12 for failure to file within 15 days after mailing.
- Trial court held an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the appeal for lack of timely filing.
- Appellant challenges the trial court’s ruling; the court of appeals affirms, concluding lack of timely filing deprived the court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether untimely filing deprived jurisdiction | Amoako argues time began when served by mail; filing with Board at issue. | Board argues 15-day requirement is jurisdictional; not timely filed. | Untimely filing deprives jurisdiction. |
| Whether filing with the agency and court within 15 days is required | Strict compliance with RC 119.12 is required. | Requirement is mandatory for jurisdiction. | Strict compliance required; timing controls jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing, 2013-Ohio-2073 (10th Dist. No. 12AP-869, 2013-Ohio-2073) (timeliness is a prerequisite to jurisdiction under RC 119.12)
- Williams v. Drabik, 115 Ohio App.3d 295 (10th Dist.1996) (compliance with RC 119.12 time requirements is necessary for perfection of appeal)
- Pole v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 2009-Ohio-5021 (10th Dist. No. 08AP-1110, 2009-Ohio-5021) (filing with agency must occur within statutory period; mailing alone does not equal filing)
- Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 114 Ohio St.3d 47 (2007-Ohio-2877) (strict adherence to RC 119.12 time limits governs appeals)