D.E. Merriwether v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
1641 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 25, 2017Background
- Merriwether received an official notice (mailed Feb. 8, 2016) that her license would be suspended 18 months for refusing chemical testing after a Dec. 23, 2015 DUI arrest; the notice set a 30‑day appeal period ending March 9, 2016.
- Merriwether filed a petition to appeal nunc pro tunc on March 23, 2016, 14 days late, claiming personal illness and a death in the family prevented timely filing.
- At the trial court hearing Merriwether testified: her great‑grandmother died Jan. 1, 2016; she traveled out of state (including Feb. 14–17); she discovered the suspension notice circa Feb. 24–27; she called PennDOT on March 11 and was told the deadline had passed; she then filed the nunc pro tunc petition on March 23.
- The trial court credited Merriwether’s testimony, found the late filing excused by extraordinary non‑negligent circumstances, permitted the late appeal, and on the merits sustained her appeal, ordering reinstatement of driving privileges.
- The Department appealed, arguing Merriwether failed to show non‑negligent extraordinary circumstances or reasonable diligence to justify nunc pro tunc relief.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed, finding the funeral and travel timeline did not justify the delay, Merriwether had ample time after return to file, and no record evidence supported claimed illness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly allowed appeal nunc pro tunc for late appeal of license suspension | Merriwether: death in family and personal illness made timely filing impossible; she proceeded promptly once aware | DOT: circumstances were not non‑negligent or extraordinary; Merriwether did not act with reasonable diligence after receiving notice | Reversed — nunc pro tunc relief not justified: facts show notice was mailed Feb. 8, she had time after return to file, and no evidence of illness; delay was inexcusable |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 129 A.3d 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (appeal period and mailing date treated as date of entry)
- Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Maddesi, 588 A.2d 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (untimely appeals deprive common pleas court of jurisdiction)
- Schofield v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 828 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (nunc pro tunc permitted only for extraordinary circumstances plus reasonable diligence)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (three‑part test for non‑negligent circumstances and narrow application)
- Baum v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 949 A.2d 345 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (standard of review for nunc pro tunc rulings)
- Centrum Prime Meats, Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 455 A.2d 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- City of Philadelphia v. Tirrill, 906 A.2d 663 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (nunc pro tunc petitions must be filed within a reasonable time after extraordinary circumstances)
- Smith v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 749 A.2d 1065 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (one‑day untimeliness without corroborating evidence can defeat nunc pro tunc relief)