Rosse v. City of Jonesboro
2016 Ark. App. 580
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- The City of Jonesboro passed a resolution on August 25, 2015, condemning Samuel A. Rosse III’s property at 700 Cate as "unsuited for human habitation."
- Rosse filed a timely notice of appeal to the Craighead County Circuit Court on September 22, 2015.
- The City moved to dismiss on February 9, 2016, arguing Rosse waited more than 120 days and failed to file a copy of a district court complaint; the circuit court dismissed the appeal with prejudice on February 16, 2016.
- Arkansas Code § 14-56-425 incorporates District Court Rule 9 procedures for appeals from municipal decisions and provides for de novo trial with jury rights.
- District Court Rule 9 requires: notice of appeal within 30 days, filing certified copies of administrative materials within 30 days of the notice, and service of the notice by mail requiring a return receipt.
- Rosse timely filed the notice and a copy of the city council resolution; the appellate record was silent whether he served the City by return-receipt mail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rosse) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosse met Rule 9’s record-filing requirement | Rosse filed a timely notice and a copy of the council resolution, satisfying Rule 9’s record requirement | City argued Rosse failed to comply with filing requirements (claimed failure to file complaint) | Court: Rosse satisfied Rule 9’s record requirement; dismissal for failure to file a complaint was erroneous |
| Whether failure to file a district-court complaint was jurisdictional | Rosse: no obligation to file a district-court complaint under Rule 9/statute | City: dismissal was proper because Rosse didn’t file the complaint | Court: No obligation to file such a complaint; dismissal on that ground was error |
| Whether service of the notice by mail requiring return receipt was met | Rosse: (not shown in record) implied compliance by timely filing | City: Rosse failed to serve notice by mail requiring return receipt as Rule 9 requires | Court: Record is silent; remanded for factual findings on whether Rosse complied with the service requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Ingram v. City of Pine Bluff, 133 S.W.3d 382 (Ark. 2003) (held Rule 9 applies to city-council resolutions via § 14-56-425 and that Rule 9’s filing requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Duffy v. Little, 2011 Ark. 160 (Ark. 2011) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and cannot be waived)