Administrative Appeals in Arizona: Does Form Prevail over Substance?

The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in Shea v. Maricopa County[1] turns on whether form prevails over substance when a party appeals a decision from an administrative agency.

The statutory requirements governing the procedure for appealing an administrative decision are strict. They require, among other things, the filing of a notice of appeal within 35 days of an administrative decision; that notice must identify the decision being appealed and state the issues on appeal.[2] An appeal that does not comply with the statute is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.[3]

In this case, the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department (“Department”) initiated proceedings against property owners Bart and Cheryl Shea for allegedly building structures on their property without the required permits. Their case was first heard by a County hearing officer, who fined them. The Sheas then timely appealed to the Department’s Board of Adjustment (“Board”), which affirmed the fine.

Following this administrative proceeding, the Sheas filed a “Verified Complaint for Special Action” in Maricopa County Superior Court, challenging the Department’s and the Board’s decisions on various grounds. The Sheas’ complaint was not captioned a “notice of appeal,” and it suffered from various other technical defects.

After the Sheas filed their complaint, the County moved to dismiss, arguing that state statute mandated dismissal of appeals from administrative decisions that do not strictly comply with the statutory requirements, including filing a notice of appeal rather than a complaint.

The Arizona Supreme Court was thus confronted with the question of whether the lower court had jurisdiction to decide the Sheas’ complaint because it was improperly titled and failed to comply with the specific requirements of the statute governing administrative appeals.

The court found that state law did not preclude judicial review of administrative decisions when a timely filed appeal: (1) provides notice of the appeal; (2) identifies the decision being appealed; and (3) states the issues on appeal.[4] Informed by a “harmless error” standard that applies to “technical defects” in appeals of agency regulations, the majority found that “non-prejudicial, non-misleading defects in a timely notice of appeal” should not bar judicial review of administrative decisions.[5] The court then found that the Sheas’ complaint complied with this standard.

The dissent was less forgiving. According to Justice Clint Bolick, the sole dissenter,  “so long as the legislature acts within its constitutional authority and complies with due process requirements,” the “job [of the judiciary] is to apply that statutory dictate.”[6] Although Justice Bolick “would prefer to emphasize substance over form,” in a case like this, when a statute is clear, he asserted, courts are obligated to follow it.[7]

The tension between the majority’s decision and the dissent may turn on the fact that appeals of administrative decisions are unlike other appeals. Normally, of course, appellate review follows a decision by the trial court, which was initiated when a complaint was filed in the trial court. In this case, the Maricopa County Superior Court, although a trial court, was acting in an appellate capacity when reviewing the decisions of an administrative agency. What’s more, part of the confusion for the Sheas, and likely many other parties subject to a labyrinth of rules governing administrative and agency decisions, is that those rules are often  complex, or as the dissent put it, “difficult for the unwary.”[8]

Here, the Sheas caught a break, and the court emphasized substance over form in the context of administrative appeals. But those who appeal administrative decisions may encounter other procedural difficulties. And parties and their counsel who challenge administrative rulingswould be wise to learn the maze of rules governing these unique actions to ensure they get their day in court.

Learn more about state courts

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].