J.A. Noweck v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
1991 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- DOT mailed notice (July 26, 2016) that Noweck’s license would be suspended one year for refusal to submit to chemical testing on July 11, 2016; the notice advised a 30-day appeal period.
- Noweck was represented by counsel; counsel misplaced the suspension letter and failed to file a timely appeal; the appeal was filed September 12, 2016 (after the 30-day period).
- Noweck moved to file the appeal nunc pro tunc, asserting counsel’s error caused the delay; the trial court granted nunc pro tunc relief, ruling counsel’s failure was a “breakdown in the system.”
- At the merits hearing, the Department’s witness did not appear, so the trial court sustained Noweck’s appeal on the merits on November 17, 2016.
- The Department appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing an untimely appeal nunc pro tunc.
- The Commonwealth Court held that attorney negligence (appeal having “fallen through the cracks”) is not the type of non-negligent, exceptional circumstance that justifies nunc pro tunc relief, vacated the trial court’s order, and remanded to quash the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly allowed an untimely statutory license-suspension appeal nunc pro tunc | Noweck: delay was caused by counsel’s mistake; appeal filed promptly once discovered; Department not prejudiced | DOT: appeal was untimely; counsel’s negligence does not constitute fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent extraordinary circumstance required for nunc pro tunc relief | Court: Vacated trial court—attorney negligence is insufficient; nunc pro tunc relief denied and appeal to be quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 830 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (statutory appeal periods are mandatory; nunc pro tunc allowed only for fraud or administrative breakdown)
- Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Maddesi, 588 A.2d 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (untimely appeals deprive trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (non-negligent-circumstance exception is narrowly applied to unforeseeable, unavoidable events)
- Bass v. Commonwealth, 401 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 1979) (secretary’s sudden illness qualified as non-negligent cause for nunc pro tunc relief)
- J.C. v. Department of Public Welfare, 720 A.2d 193 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (non-negligent circumstances related to petitioner or counsel are narrowly construed)
- Smith v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 749 A.2d 1065 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (nunc pro tunc generally allowed only for fraud or court/administrative breakdown)