In the recent decision, Perkins County Board of Equalization v. Mid America Agri Products/Wheatland Industries, LLC, The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed a judicial review request from the Perkins County Board of Equalization ("the Board"), finding it lacked jurisdiction on the issue. The request followed an unfavorable outcome from a previous decision by the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC). The Board appealed TERC's decision based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5019.
Wheatland owns real property in Perkins County that was improved with ethanol production facilities. In 2018, 2019, and 2020, Wheatland protested the valuations of the property set by the Perkins County assessor. The Board denied the original protests and Wheatland appealed the Board's decision to TERC. In 2023, TERC reversed the Board's original decision and lowered the Perkins County assessor's valuation for each of the three years contested. Following TERC's decision, the Board requested a judicial review of the administrative decision.
The Board filed the petition in the Court of Appeals on February 16, 2023. That same day, the Board paid the docket fee and filed a praecipe with the Court's Clerk for a summons; the summons was issued the same day. The Board mailed the summons on February 22 and received a notification of the delivery taking place on March 29, forty-one days after filing the petition. Additionally, a courtesy copy of the summons was emailed to Wheatland's counsel. On February 23, Wheatland's counsel filed an appearance of counsel and a "Response to Petition for Review" addressing the allegations in the Board's petition.
The Supreme Court considered whether a voluntary appearance can satisfy the statutory requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5019(2)(b). In general, for a judicial review of an administrative decision, the Court requires both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5019 procedurally gives the Court personal and subject matter jurisdiction via the requirements explicitly stated in the statute. Here, the requirement at issue is found in § 77-5019(2)(b): "[s]ummons shall be served on all parties within thirty days after the filing of the petition in the manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action." The question to the Court was then whether the Court had subject matter jurisdiction, as service was made outside the statutory thirty-day deadline.
The Nebraska Supreme Court found it did not have jurisdiction over the parties because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction for a judicial review of an administrative decision under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5019 is acquired through the proper service of summons to the defendant within thirty days of the filing of the petition for review. Additionally, the statute requires that the summons be provided the same way as in a civil action.
The Nebraska Supreme Court explained that the Board did not successfully meet the requirement of serving the summons within thirty days as the summons sent via certified mail reached Wheatland forty-one days after filing the petition. If the summons' service requirements are not met, then the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and ultimately has no authority over the issue. Furthermore, the Court explained that a voluntary appearance, like the one Wheatland's counsel entered, only gives the court personal jurisdiction over the issue and does not serve as a substitute for the service requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5019.
Despite the Board's diligent efforts, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that it did not meet the service requirements under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5019 by serving the summons to Wheatland forty-one days after the filing of the petition. As a result, the Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and thus did not have authority over the issue. The Court's opinion offers a new insight into the application of the requirements of
The Nebraska Supreme Court's decision in this case, particularly its interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5019, could potentially set a precedent and significantly influence future judicial reviews of administrative decisions. This underscores the importance of this case and its potential impact on the legal landscape.