Goodson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Goodson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.

187 S.W.3d 878, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 418, 2006 WL 851810

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 2006

DocketNo. ED 87328

StatusPublished

This text of 187 S.W.3d 878 (Goodson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., 187 S.W.3d 878, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 418, 2006 WL 851810 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

GLENN A. NORTON, Chief Judge.

This case involves an appeal in an unemployment case from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. Because the notice of appeal to this Court is untimely, however, the appeal is dismissed.

Charles Goodson (Claimant) applied for unemployment benefits after losing his job with employer. A deputy from the Division of Employment Security determined Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under section 288.050, RSMo 2000, because he was discharged due to misconduct connected with his work. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. Claimant appealed to the Commission, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal. [879]*879Claimant then filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

This Court has a duty to determine sua sponte whether it has jurisdiction. Watkins v. Kings Food Philips Inc., 160 S.W.3d 421 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). After reviewing the record on appeal, this Court issued an order directing Claimant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a timely notice of appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the order.

In unemployment cases, the statutes allow an aggrieved party twenty days to file a notice of appeal from the date the Commission’s decision becomes final. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000. The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000. Here, the Secretary for the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on October 25, 2005. The decision became final ten days later and Claimant’s notice of appeal was due on Monday, November 28, 2005. Sections 288.200.2; section 288.210; section 288.240, RSMo 2000 (if the thirtieth day falls on a weekend or holiday, the filing date falls to the next business day). Claimant filed his notice of appeal on December 5, 2005, which is untimely.

Section 288.210 makes no provision for late filing of a notice of appeal. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). An untimely notice of appeal in an unemployment case deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Loeffler v. Shop N Save, 121 S.W.3d 261, 261 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Although Rule 81.07 does allow late notices of appeal in certain cases, this rule does not apply in administrative cases absent specific legislative authority. Lovelace v. Barnes-Jewish Hosp., 158 S.W.3d 859 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). There is no legislative authority for a late notice of appeal in an unemployment case. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to consider Claimant’s appeal.

Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. and BOOKER T. SHAW, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GLENN A. NORTON, Chief Judge.

This case involves an appeal in an unemployment case from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. Because the notice of appeal to this Court is untimely, however, the appeal is dismissed.

Charles Goodson (Claimant) applied for unemployment benefits after losing his job with employer. A deputy from the Division of Employment Security determined Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under section 288.050, RSMo 2000, because he was discharged due to misconduct connected with his work. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. Claimant appealed to the Commission, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal. [879]*879Claimant then filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

This Court has a duty to determine sua sponte whether it has jurisdiction. Watkins v. Kings Food Philips Inc., 160 S.W.3d 421 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). After reviewing the record on appeal, this Court issued an order directing Claimant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a timely notice of appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the order.

In unemployment cases, the statutes allow an aggrieved party twenty days to file a notice of appeal from the date the Commission’s decision becomes final. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000. The Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000. Here, the Secretary for the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on October 25, 2005. The decision became final ten days later and Claimant’s notice of appeal was due on Monday, November 28, 2005. Sections 288.200.2; section 288.210; section 288.240, RSMo 2000 (if the thirtieth day falls on a weekend or holiday, the filing date falls to the next business day). Claimant filed his notice of appeal on December 5, 2005, which is untimely.

Section 288.210 makes no provision for late filing of a notice of appeal. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). An untimely notice of appeal in an unemployment case deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Loeffler v. Shop N Save, 121 S.W.3d 261, 261 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Although Rule 81.07 does allow late notices of appeal in certain cases, this rule does not apply in administrative cases absent specific legislative authority. Lovelace v. Barnes-Jewish Hosp., 158 S.W.3d 859 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). There is no legislative authority for a late notice of appeal in an unemployment case. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to consider Claimant’s appeal.

Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. and BOOKER T. SHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.W.3d 878, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 418, 2006 WL 851810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodson-v-marriott-hotel-services-inc-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack