Lozier Corp. v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equal.
285 Neb. 705
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Lozier mailed three appeals to TERC before the filing deadline; TERC did not receive them until after the deadline.
- Envelope was mailed September 1, 2011, in a single package with postage meter on Marks Nelson’s end.
- Envelope arrived back to Marks Nelson on September 15, 2011, after which it was re-mailed with additional postage to TERC.
- TERC dismissed as untimely, focusing on lack of a legible postmark and whether the mailing was properly placed in the mail.
- Dispute centers on whether a postage meter stamp qualifies as a “postmark” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5013(2) (Cum. Supp. 2012).
- Nebraska Supreme Court reverses, holding that the Sept. 1 mailing met § 77-5013(2) requirements and that a postage meter stamp can be a postmark under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sept. 1, 2011 mailing met § 77-5013(2) timing requirements | Lozier placed the envelope in mail for delivery to TERC | The Sept. 1 mailing did not reach TERC and thus was improper | Yes; the Sept. 1 mailing satisfied the timing requirement. |
| Whether a postage meter stamp can qualify as a postmark | Postage meter stamp constitutes a postmark under § 77-5013(2) | Only USPS postmarks count under TERC rules | Yes; a postage meter stamp is a postmark under the statute. |
| Whether statutory interpretation should defer to mailbox rule rather than arrival at entity | Mailbox rule governs timing regardless of actual receipt | Receipt controls timing for jurisdiction | Mailbox rule applies; mailing date controls for jurisdiction. |
| Whether USPS/DMM regulations affect interpretation of postmark | Metered mail regulated by USPS supports postmark status | Regulations do not redefine postmark | Regulations support treating meter stamp as postmark for § 77-5013(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- Creighton St. Joseph Hosp. v. Tax Eq. & Rev. Comm., 260 Neb. 905 (2000) (administrative authorization to adopt mailbox rule questioned)
- Spady v. Spady, 284 Neb. 885 (2012) (timely mailing is timely filing considerations)
- Republic Bank v. Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Equalization, 283 Neb. 721 (2012) (discusses mail timing and postmark concepts)
- Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 (2012) (statutory construction and postmark interpretation)
- Severs v. Abrahamson, 255 Iowa 979 (1963) (early authority on postmark concepts (non-Nebraska))