Z.J. Seilhamer, Jr. v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
589 and 710-712 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- In March–August 2014 Seilhamer was arrested/convicted on Vehicle Code offenses; the DOT mailed four suspension/revocation notices to the address on his license (714 S. Kettle St.).
- Notices: April 10, 2014 (18‑month suspension for refusal to submit to chemical testing) and August 11, 2014 (one‑year suspension for driving while suspended; one‑year revocation for felony-related unlicensed driving resulting in injury/death; 18‑month suspension for DUI general impairment).
- Each notice advised Seilhamer of a 30‑day right to appeal; he did not file appeals within that period.
- On October 31, 2016 (more than two years later) Seilhamer petitioned the trial court for leave to file appeals nunc pro tunc, alleging changed law (Birchfield), jurisdictional facts, merged charges, and incarceration prevented earlier filing.
- The trial court denied nunc pro tunc relief on January 18, 2017 (docketed Jan. 26, 2017). Seilhamer filed a late petition for reconsideration on April 4, 2017; the trial court purported to deny it (Apr. 12/19, 2017). Seilhamer appealed; the Commonwealth Court quashed the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from Jan. 18, 2017 order | Seilhamer appealed the trial court's denial of nunc pro tunc relief | DOT: appeal was not filed within 30 days of entry; therefore untimely | Quashed — appeal of Jan. 18, 2017 order was untimely (appellant failed to file within 30 days) |
| Trial court jurisdiction to consider April 2017 reconsideration petition | Seilhamer sought reconsideration April 4, 2017 and requested appeal from that denial | DOT: trial court lost jurisdiction after 30 days; any action after that is a nullity | Quashed — trial court lacked jurisdiction to act; denial of late reconsideration is non‑appealable |
| Entitlement to nunc pro tunc relief (merits) | Seilhamer claimed legal developments (Birchfield), jurisdictional facts, merged charges, and incarceration prevented timely appeal | DOT: no fraud or administrative/judicial breakdown shown to excuse untimeliness | Trial court found no basis for nunc pro tunc; Commonwealth Court review not reached on merits because appeals quashed as untimely/nullity |
| Appealability of denial of reconsideration | Seilhamer treated the trial court's April denial as appealable and included it in his notice | DOT: where trial court lacked jurisdiction any such denial is a nullity and not appealable | Quashed — appeal from denial of reconsideration is not permitted where the underlying action was beyond the court's post‑entry jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Grassi, 565 A.2d 865 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (presumption of receipt of court order; post‑judgment jurisdiction rules)
- Nagelberg v. Department of Transportation, 543 A.2d 634 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (courts lose jurisdiction after 30 days absent timely appeal; further proceedings are nullities)
- In re Consolidated Return of Real Estate Tax Sale, 74 A.3d 1089 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (post‑entry jurisdiction limitations and effect of untimely motions)
- Hudson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 830 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (standard of review for denial of nunc pro tunc appeals)