J v. Lounge, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
131 A.3d 517
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Licensee's liquor license expired in 2009 and was placed in safekeeping under Liquor Code §4-474.1(d).
- Licensee untimely filed renewal/validation and safekeeping-extension applications on March 26, 2013.
- Board objected to filings for lack of tax clearance and late filing; stated renewals should have been filed earlier and that tax clearance evidence was required.
- Board held a hearing to determine whether nunc pro tunc relief could be granted for renewal/validation and safekeeping filings.
- Board denied untimely renewal/validation applications on April 15, 2014; Licensee filed a nunc pro tunc appeal to the trial court more than three months later.
- Trial court reversed the Board, granting nunc pro tunc relief, and ordered renewal; Board appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nunc pro tunc relief was properly granted for an untimely appeal | Licensee argues extraordinary circumstances justified relief | Board contends timely filing rules are mandatory and no extraordinary circumstances shown | Trial court abused discretion; nunc pro tunc relief improper |
| Whether renewal/validation could be accepted nunc pro tunc despite untimely filings | Licensee contends relief should allow renewal | Board may deny renewals for untimely filings; no prejudice shown | Board's denial of renewals upheld; no nunc pro tunc relief for filings |
| Whether tax clearances are required before renewal without jeopardizing eligibility | Licensee argues tax clearance proof was not provided | Board requires tax clearance/clearance from Revenue for renewal | Board's requirement of tax clearance sustained; renewal void without clearance |
Key Cases Cited
- Arena Beverage Corp. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 97 A.3d 444 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (nunc pro tunc relief limited; extraordinary circumstances required)
- Olson v. Borough of Homestead, 443 A.2d 875 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (timeliness of an appeal is jurisdictional)
- Hillanbrand v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 508 A.2d 375 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (timeliness and jurisdictional issues in appeals)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (extraordinary circumstances test for nunc pro tunc relief)
- Borough of Riegelsville v. Bucks Cnty. Bd. of Assessment & Revision of Taxes, 979 A.2d 399 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (extraordinary circumstances needed for nunc pro tunc relief)
- Hanoverian, Inc. v. Lehigh Cnty. Bd. of Assessment, 701 A.2d 288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (limits on nunc pro tunc relief; fraud/duress/coercion considerations)
- Baum v. Dep’t of Transp., 949 A.2d 345 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (timeliness and relief standards in administrative appeals)
- Union Elec. Corp. v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment, 746 A.2d 581 (Pa. 2000) (exclusive administrative remedies; time limits)
- Puckett v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 804 A.2d 140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (standard for reviewing nunc pro tunc appeals)