Johnson v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors
765 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 21
Ariz. Ct. App.2017Background
- Homeowners hired Forsythe for roofing; Pamela Johnson later bought the house, discovered leaks, and filed a complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
- The Registrar issued a corrective work order; Forsythe failed to comply and the Registrar suspended its license. Johnson filed a Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund claim, which the Registrar denied.
- Johnson requested an OAH hearing; the ALJ upheld the denial and the Registrar adopted the ALJ decision, making it a final administrative decision on September 15, 2015.
- The 35-day statutory appeal period under A.R.S. § 12-904(A) ran through October 26, 2015. Johnson filed a notice of appeal with the Registrar on October 15, 2015, but did not file the notice in superior court until October 27, 2015.
- The Registrar moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to untimeliness; the superior court dismissed Johnson’s appeal. Johnson appealed that dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Where must a notice of appeal under A.R.S. § 12-904(A) be filed? | Johnson: § 12-904(A) does not specify a filing location, so filing with the Registrar should be sufficient and timely. | Registrar: § 12-904(A) requires commencing an "action" by filing a notice of appeal in superior court; misfiling with the agency is not sufficient. | The court held the notice must be filed in superior court; filing with the agency is not timely. |
| Whether statutory scheme or rules permit treating a misfiled notice as timely | Johnson: Misfiled filings in another forum have been treated as timely in prior cases; the Registrar filing should be accepted. | Registrar: Prior cases relied on different rules/statutes (ARCAP 4(a) or § 12-120.22) inapplicable here; JRAD and civil rules require filing in superior court. | The court rejected Johnson’s reliance on those precedents and held those doctrines do not apply; misfiling with the agency is not rescued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez, 241 Ariz. 372 (appellate court interprets statutes de novo)
- M-11 Ltd. P’ship v. Gommard, 235 Ariz. 166 (untimely administrative appeals deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, 212 Ariz. 407 (appeal deadline jurisdictional)
- Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc., 172 Ariz. 608 (proceeding before registrar is not an "action" in court)
- Patches v. Indus. Comm’n, 220 Ariz. 179 (avoid statutory constructions producing absurd results)
- Backus v. State, 220 Ariz. 101 (construe statutes to give effect to whole scheme)
- Wilkinson v. Fabry, 177 Ariz. 506 (misfiled appellate papers deemed timely under then-ARCAP 4(a))
- Martinez v. Indus. Comm’n, 213 Ariz. 531 (misfiled special-action petitions treated as timely under ARCAP and § 12-120.22)