Zajac v. Traill County Water Resource District, 881 N.W.2d 666

In June 2014 Traill County Water Resource District (Resource District) initially approved Patricia Bertsch’s application to install subsurface drain tile, conditioned on obtaining flowage easements from affected landowners including Ray Zajac.
On July 7, 2015 the Resource District amended its approval to remove the requirement that Bertsch obtain an easement from Zajac; the meeting agenda (filed with the county auditor) listed the easement issue.
No separate hearing notice was mailed or personally served on Zajac before the July 7 meeting. The Resource District notified Zajac of the July 7 decision by letter dated July 14, 2015.
Zajac filed a notice of appeal to district court on August 10, 2015 challenging the amended decision and asserting delayed notice and insufficient procedural notice violated due process.
The district court dismissed the appeal as untimely under N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01 (30-day filing requirement). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the appeal was untimely and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zajac’s appeal was timely under N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01	Time to appeal should be tolled until Zajac actually received notice (July 14 letter)	The 30-day filing period runs from the local governing body’s decision date (July 7) regardless of receipt timing	Appeal untimely; filed Aug 10 beyond 30 days from July 7, so dismissal affirmed
Whether the 30-day appeal period may be tolled	Tolling required to protect due process when a party lacks actual notice	Statutory language confers jurisdiction and contains no tolling provision; plain meaning controls	No tolling; statute is jurisdictional and unambiguous so time limit applies
Whether the court should reach Zajac’s procedural due process claim	Zajac argues inadequate notice of the meeting denied opportunity to be heard	Resource District notes agenda was filed and no separate service was required under the governing statute	Court declined to address due process claim because appeal was jurisdictionally untimely
Whether timely filing is jurisdictional for appeals from local governing bodies	N/A (argument embedded in above)	Timely filing is mandatory to invoke district court jurisdiction	Confirmed: timely filing is jurisdictional under precedent

Nelson v. Johnson, 778 N.W.2d 773 (N.D. 2010) (statutory interpretation review is plenary)
In re Estate of Elken, 735 N.W.2d 842 (N.D. 2007) (statutory language given plain meaning unless ambiguous)
Grand Forks Homes, Inc. v. State, 795 N.W.2d 335 (N.D. 2011) (timely filing to appeal local governing body decision is jurisdictional)