AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• JTC, Inc. (Protestant) appealed a decision from the Taxation & Revenue Administrative Hearings Office regarding a letter of protest. The appeal was challenged due to the lack of a notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals, a mandatory precondition for the court's jurisdiction (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Protestant-Appellant: Argued that the failure to file a notice of appeal was an inadvertent error or clerical mistake by counsel and requested the court to overlook the defect and accept the appeal (para 3).
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals should exercise jurisdiction over an appeal in the absence of a filed notice of appeal (para 2).
• Whether the Protestant’s failure to file a notice of appeal constitutes excusable neglect allowing for a retroactive extension of time to file the notice (para 5).

Disposition

• The motion for a retroactive extension of time to file the notice of appeal was denied, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of a notice of appeal (para 7).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, Chief Judge, concurred by Julie J. Vargas, Judge, and Briana H. Zamora, Judge: The court determined that the mandatory precondition of filing a notice of appeal had not been met, and without it, the court should not exercise jurisdiction over the appeal (para 2). The court found no unusual circumstances beyond the control of the parties that would warrant overlooking procedural defects (para 3). Despite the Protestant's argument that there was no substantive prejudice to the parties and that all parties acted as though the appeal was properly filed, the court held that the time and location of filing are mandatory preconditions to its jurisdiction, and no unusual circumstances existed to exercise jurisdiction in this case (para 4). The court also concluded that the Protestant's counsel's neglect in filing the notice of appeal with the wrong court did not meet the high standard for excusable neglect as defined by New Mexico’s standard, thus not justifying a retroactive extension of time to file the notice of appeal (para 5-6).