Hargrave v. Tulsa Board of Adjustment

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal from a municipal board of adjustment are mandatory. Because Hargrave did not timely file his notice of appeal with both the Tulsa municipal clerk and the board’s clerk, the court affirmed dismissal of the appeal.

Holdings

1. The requirements of 11 O.S. § 44-110 for perfecting an appeal from a municipal board of adjustment are mandatory. A proper notice of appeal must be filed with both the board of adjustment and the municipal clerk within the time fixed by ordinance.
2. Failure to file a proper notice of appeal with both the board of adjustment and the municipal clerk within the ordinance-prescribed period is fatal and prevents the district court from obtaining jurisdiction over the appeal.
3. When a proper notice of appeal is timely filed with both the board of adjustment and the municipal clerk, the district court obtains jurisdiction when the board transmits the original or certified copies of the administrative record to the district court clerk.
4. Substantial compliance did not preserve Hargrave's appeal because the statute required filing, not merely mailing, and Hargrave did not timely file the notice with either the board or the municipal clerk.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the statutory requirements in 11 O.S. § 44-110 for perfecting an appeal from a municipal board of adjustment are mandatory and jurisdictional.
2. Whether Hargrave's mailing of the notice of appeal to the wrong address constituted substantial compliance with the statutory filing requirements.
3. Whether the filing requirements concerned venue rather than jurisdiction.
4. Whether the Board was equitably estopped from challenging the manner in which Hargrave filed his notice of appeal.
5. Whether Hargrave could raise on appeal an issue concerning jurisdiction that he had not raised before the district court.

Disposition

affirmed