Keithley v. Kansas Employment Security Bd. of Rev.
Case Date: 04/04/1997
Court: Court of Appeals
Docket No: 74614
23 Kan. App. 2d 732 No. 74,614 RICHARD E. KEITHLEY, Appellant, v. KANSAS EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BOARD OF REVIEW and LAURENCE M. JARVIS, CHARTERED, Appellees. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The time for taking an administrative appeal, as prescribed by statute, is jurisdictional and delay beyond the statutory time is fatal to an appeal. 2. K.S.A. 44-709 and K.A.R. 48-4-1 provide the method for computing the appeal time when a referee's decision is appealed to the Kansas Employment Security Board of Review. K.S.A. 44-709(c) provides that the referee's decision is final, notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute, unless an appeal to the board of review is filed within 16 calendar days after the mailing of the decision. K.S.A. 44-709(e) provides that the date of the act from which the period of time begins to run shall not be counted but that the last day of the period shall be included, unless it is a weekend or legal holiday, in which event the period is extended to the next day that is not a weekend or legal holiday. K.A.R. 48-4-1 provides that when filed by mail a notice of appeal shall be considered filed on the date postmarked. Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; CORDELL D. MEEKS, JR, judge. Opinion filed April 4, 1997. Affirmed. Richard E. Keithley, appellant pro se. James R. McEntire and Marlin White, of Topeka, for the appellee Kansas Employment Security Board of Review. Before PIERRON, P.J., NELSON E. TOBUREN and STEVE LEBEN, District Judges, assigned. TOBUREN, J.: Richard E. Keithley appeals the district court's ruling that his unemployment compensation appeal to the Kansas Employment Security Board of Review (Board) was untimely and that he was not entitled to unemployment benefits even if his appeal was timely. The district court first found that the appeal to the Board was not filed within the 16-day period provided by K.S.A. 44-709. The "Decision Mailed" date stamped on the referee's decision is August 23, 1994. Keithley mailed his notice of appeal to the Board on September 9, 1994. He argues that the K.S.A. 60-206(e) 3-day additional time rule applies because he was served with notice of the referee's decision by mail. The resolution of the issue as to whether Keithley's appeal to the Board was timely filed turns on the interpretation of K.S.A. 44-701 et seq., the Kansas Employment Security Law, and K.S.A. 60-206, the time computation rule found in the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure. Interpretation of statutes are questions of law and this court's scope of review is unlimited. City of Lakin v. Kansas Employment Security Bd. of Review, 19 Kan. App. 2d 188, 189, 865 P.2d 223 (1993). K.S.A. 44-709 reads in relevant part:
K.A.R. 48-4-1 reads in relevant part:
The referee's decision contained the following statement:
K.S.A. 60-206 reads in relevant part:
By its terms, K.S.A. 60-206(a) is to be applied when the method for computing time is not otherwise specifically provided under any law of this state or any rule or regulation lawfully promulgated thereunder. K.S.A. 44-709 and K.A.R. 48-4-1 provide the method for computing the appeal time applicable to this case. K.S.A. 44-709(c) provides that the referee's decision is final, notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute, unless an appeal to the board of review is filed within 16 calendar days after the mailing of the decision. K.S.A. 44-709(e) provides that the date of the act from which the period of time begins to run shall not be counted but that the last day of the period shall be included, unless it is a weekend or legal holiday, in which event the period is extended to the next day that is not a weekend or legal holiday. K.A.R. 48-4-1 provides that when filed by mail a notice of appeal shall be considered filed on the date postmarked. There is no contention made in this record that the postmark on the envelope was missing or illegible. The 16th day after the referee's decision was mailed was September 8, 1994. September 8, 1994, was not a weekend or a legal holiday. Keithley's appeal mailed September 9, 1994, was not timely. Keithley cites Quivira Falls Community Ass'n v. Johnson County, 230 Kan. 350, 634 P.2d 1115 (1981); Wheat State Telephone Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 195 Kan. 268, 403 P.2d 1019 (1965); and In re Tax Appeal of Newton Country Club Co., 12 Kan. App. 2d 638, 753 P.2d 304, rev. denied 243 Kan. 779 (1988), in support of his contention that the 3-day mail rule should be applied in this case. They are not on point. Quivira Falls involved a Board of Tax Appeals order. The relevant issue was whether an appeal was timely filed within the 30-day period provided in K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 74-2426 where the 30th day fell on Sunday and the following Monday was a legal holiday. At that time there was no procedure provided within the applicable statutes or regulations for calculating appeal times and the court applied K.S.A. 60-206(a). By the time of Newton Country Club, the legislature had made the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions, K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 77-601 et seq., applicable to Board of Tax Appeals and K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 77-613(d) of that act mirrored the 3-day mail time language of K.S.A. 60-206(e). However, the statute did not provide guidance when the last day to appeal fell on a weekend or legal holiday and the court again applied K.S.A. 60-206(a) to determine when the appeal began to run in the event the last day fell on a weekend or legal holiday. In Wheat State, the Kansas Corporation Commission had, by rule and regulation, specifically adopted the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure providing for 3 additional days where service was made by mail. "'The time for taking an administrative appeal, as prescribed by statute, is jurisdictional and delay beyond the statutory time is fatal to an appeal.'" State Bank Commissioner v. Emery, 19 Kan. App. 2d 1063, 1072, 880 P.2d 783 (1994). Keithley's appeal from the referee's decision to the Board was not timely, and the decision of the referee became final at that time. The decision of the district court finding that the appeal was not timely filed is affirmed. The remaining issues are moot. Affirmed. |