Scott v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
222 N.C. App. 125
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Anthony E. Scott appeals a dismissal of his petition for a contested case hearing against Secretary Young’s termination decision.
- The OAH petition was filed March 11, 2010; filing fee was not paid at filing.
- OAH notified on March 16, 2010 that a $20 filing fee was required for processing.
- Plaintiff’s counsel sent checks on March 16 and March 22, 2010; funds were not timely received.
- OAH eventually received and began processing the petition on March 23, 2010.
- Trial court granted the dismissal for lack of timely fee payment; this was reversed in part and case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fee payment timing is jurisdictional. | Scott contends payment timing is not jurisdictional. | North Carolina Dept. argues timely payment is jurisdictional. | Reversed; payment timing is not a jurisdictional prerequisite. |
| How statutes govern commencement vs. payment of fees. | Filing and payment are distinct acts; payment need not accompany filing. | Fees must be paid at or before commencement. | Statutes allow separate timing; OAH can commence while fee paid later. |
| Effect of administrative rules and deference to agency interpretation. | Rules support concurrent filing and fee collection. | Agency rules do not override statutory prerequisites. | Court defers to agency rule interpretation but adopts view that fee need not be simultaneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lenox, Inc. v. Tolson, 353 N.C. 659 (N.C. 2001) (statutory interpretation guidance emphasizing legislative intent)
- Nailing v. UNC-CH, 117 N.C. App. 318 (N.C. App. 1994) (procedure for commencing a contested case under Chapter 150B)
- Concrete Co. v. Bd. of Comm’rs., 299 N.C. 620 (N.C. 1980) (principles of statutory interpretation and legislative intent)
- Frye Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Hunt, 350 N.C. 39 (N.C. 1999) (deference to agency construction of regulations)
- Star Auto. Co. v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 95 N.C. App. 103 (N.C. App. 1989) (remand for merits when threshold dismissal is inappropriate)