Murray v. MIDWEST MORTGAGE CAPITAL, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Murray v. MIDWEST MORTGAGE CAPITAL, LLC

324 S.W.3d 492, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1528, 2010 WL 4483392

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 9, 2010

DocketED 95480

StatusPublished

This text of 324 S.W.3d 492 (Murray v. MIDWEST MORTGAGE CAPITAL, LLC) 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

Murray v. MIDWEST MORTGAGE CAPITAL, LLC, 324 S.W.3d 492, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1528, 2010 WL 4483392 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ROY L. RICHTER, Chief Judge.

Stan Murray (Claimant) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) decision denying his application for unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment béne-fits, because he was employed while filing claims for benefits. In a related case, a deputy further determined that Claimant had been overpaid benefits in the amount of $3,586.32. Claimant appealed both of these determinations to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission, which issued an order affirming the Appeals Tribunal’s decisions in these two matters. Claimant has now filed a notice of appeal to this Court from both decisions. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal, asserting it is *493 untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

The right of appeal is purely statutory and where statutes do not give such a right, no appeal exists. Labrier v. Anheuser Ford, Inc., 621 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Mo. banc 1981). Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, requires that an appealing party’s notice of appeal be filed with the Commission within twenty days after the decision of the Commission becomes final. The decision of the Commission becomes final ten days after the date of mailing of the decision to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000.

Here, the Commission mailed its decisions in both matters to Claimant on August 10, 2010. Therefore, the notice of appeal to this Court was due on or before September 9, 2010. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant faxed his notice of appeal to the Commission on September 10, 2010. As a result, Claimant’s notice of appeal is untimely under section 288.200. The unemployment statutes do not provide for the late filing of the notice of appeal and do not recognize any exceptions for filing out of time. McCuin Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). Therefore, our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

KURT S. ODENWALD, J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J., concur.

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

ROY L. RICHTER, Chief Judge.

Stan Murray (Claimant) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) decision denying his application for unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment béne-fits, because he was employed while filing claims for benefits. In a related case, a deputy further determined that Claimant had been overpaid benefits in the amount of $3,586.32. Claimant appealed both of these determinations to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed. Claimant then filed an application for review with the Commission, which issued an order affirming the Appeals Tribunal’s decisions in these two matters. Claimant has now filed a notice of appeal to this Court from both decisions. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal, asserting it is *493 untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

The right of appeal is purely statutory and where statutes do not give such a right, no appeal exists. Labrier v. Anheuser Ford, Inc., 621 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Mo. banc 1981). Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, requires that an appealing party’s notice of appeal be filed with the Commission within twenty days after the decision of the Commission becomes final. The decision of the Commission becomes final ten days after the date of mailing of the decision to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000.

Here, the Commission mailed its decisions in both matters to Claimant on August 10, 2010. Therefore, the notice of appeal to this Court was due on or before September 9, 2010. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant faxed his notice of appeal to the Commission on September 10, 2010. As a result, Claimant’s notice of appeal is untimely under section 288.200. The unemployment statutes do not provide for the late filing of the notice of appeal and do not recognize any exceptions for filing out of time. McCuin Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). Therefore, our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

The Division’s motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

KURT S. ODENWALD, J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 S.W.3d 492, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1528, 2010 WL 4483392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-midwest-mortgage-capital-llc-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack