AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Pete's Top Quality Landscape, LLC (the appellant) appealed against a decision and order by an administrative hearing officer, which denied their tax protest. The order was entered and mailed on October 12, 2017. The appellant's primary contention in the appeal was related to the timeliness of their notice of appeal based on the date of receipt of the order (para 3).

Procedural History

• Administrative Hearings Office, Chris Romero, Hearing Officer: Denied the tax protest of Pete's Top Quality Landscape, LLC, with the decision and order entered and mailed on October 12, 2017.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the notice of appeal was timely filed, contending that the actual date of mailing of the order was unknown due to the absence of a certificate of service, and that the earliest receipt date was October 16, 2017, making their November 16, 2017, filing within the 30-day requirement (para 3).
• Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's notice of appeal was filed within the required timeframe, considering the date of mailing or delivery of the administrative hearing officer's decision and order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal (para 4).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with STEPHEN G. FRENCH and JENNIFER L. ATTREP concurring, the court found that the appellant's notice of appeal was untimely. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the absence of a certificate of service and the unknown mailing date, the court noted that a certificate of service was indeed attached to the order, indicating it was mailed on October 12, 2017. Therefore, the notice of appeal should have been filed on or before November 13, 2017, to be considered timely. The filing on November 16, 2017, did not meet this requirement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (paras 2-4).