In Re the Appeal of Fayetteville Hotel Associates
Docket: 9410PTC106
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; December 6, 1994; North Carolina; State Appellate Court
Taxpayer Fayetteville Hotel Associates appealed the dismissal of its property appraisal appeal by the Cumberland County Board of Equalization, arguing that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion due to a violation of Commission rules. The relevant North Carolina General Statute (G.S. 105-288(b)) allows the Commission to adopt necessary rules, which are detailed in the North Carolina Administrative Code, specifically Sections .0213 and .0214. These sections require that parties submit six copies of all hearing documents and enter into a pre-hearing order at least ten days prior to the hearing. The Commission found that it had notified the taxpayer of the hearing and the rules regarding document exchange on September 22, 1993. However, the taxpayer failed to provide the necessary documents or enter into a pre-trial order within the required timeframe, submitting documents only the day before the hearing. The respondent had complied with the rules and attempted to engage the taxpayer in accordance with the timeline. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the taxpayer's appeal for noncompliance, asserting that administrative agency rules, once adopted, are binding and must be enforced without discretion to waive them. The court upheld the Commission's decision, stating that dismissal for rule violations was an appropriate sanction, reinforcing the binding nature of the Commission's rules on both the agency and the public. The Commission has implied authority to enforce its rules through dismissal of appeals for non-compliance, which is essential for its function as a quasi-judicial body. The Taxpayer contends that the Commission should have considered less severe sanctions but fails to provide legal support for the imposition of attorney's fees or other milder penalties. While the Commission can dismiss appeals for rule violations, imposing sanctions like attorney's fees requires specific legislative authority beyond its general rulemaking powers, as stated in G.S. 105-288(b). The order dismissing the taxpayer's appeal is affirmed. Judge Orr dissents, arguing that both dismissal and lesser sanctions necessitate legislative authority and contends that the sanctions imposed are not statutorily mandated, advocating for a reversal of the Commission's order.