PRESENT: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and
Kinser, JJ., and Whiting, S.J.
VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUSTICE HENRY H. WHITING
v. Record No. 002253 September 14, 2001
LINDA K. AVERY
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
In this case, we consider the effect of alleged
deficiencies in an appeal to the circuit court from the decision
of an administrative agency.
On March 5, 1998, the Virginia Retirement System (VRS)
denied disability benefits to Linda K. Avery (Avery), an
employee of the Prince William County School Board, in a final
case decision. Avery filed her notice of appeal with VRS under
the provisions of Rule 2A:2, one of the rules we promulgated
pursuant to Code § 9-6.14:16 to regulate appeals from the
decisions of administrative agencies under the Administrative
Process Act (APA). Thereafter, Avery filed her petition for
appeal in the Circuit Court of Prince William County under Rule
2A:4, the following provisions thereof being pertinent to this
appeal:
(a) Within 30 days after the filing of the notice of
appeal, the appellant shall file his petition for appeal
with the clerk of the circuit court named in the first
notice of appeal to be filed. Such filing shall include
all steps provided in Rules 2:2 and 2:3 to cause a copy of
the petition to be served (as in the case of a bill of
complaint in equity) on the agency secretary and on every
other party.
Although Avery mailed a "courtesy copy" of her petition for
appeal to the secretary of VRS within the 30-day period required
by Rule 2A:4(a), she did not expressly request that process
issue for service of a copy of her petition upon the secretary
of VRS. No such process had been issued or served before VRS's
demurrer to Avery's petition for appeal raised this issue. In
its demurrer, VRS asserted that Avery's failure "to meet the
procedural requirements for perfecting an appeal under the
Virginia Administrative Process Act" required the circuit court
to dismiss the appeal, because it lacked jurisdiction.
After the court overruled the demurrer, Avery sent a copy
of a subpoena in chancery and her petition for appeal by an
express delivery service to the secretary of VRS and, in an
affirmative defense, VRS responded that this also was not a
proper service of process. Following a hearing of Avery's
appeal on the merits, the circuit court ordered that Avery's
previously terminated disability benefits be reinstated and
remanded the case to VRS for further administrative proceedings.
VRS and Avery appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Court
1
of Appeals. Code § 17.1-405.
1
Avery's appeal of the circuit court's denial of attorney's
fees is not involved in this appeal.
2
A panel of that court affirmed the circuit court's judgment
that it had subject matter jurisdiction. Avery v. Virginia
Retirement System, 31 Va. App. 1, 10, 16, 520 S.E.2d 831, 836,
839 (1999). On VRS's petition, the Court of Appeals granted a
rehearing en banc, and later affirmed the panel's ruling. Avery
v. Virginia Retirement System, 33 Va. App. 210, 217, 532 S.E.2d
348, 351 (2000). Upon our determination that this ruling had
significant precedential value, see Code § 17.1-410(B), we
granted an appeal to VRS.
VRS's first assignment of error is that Avery failed "to
perfect her Administrative Process Act . . . appeal to the
Prince William County Circuit Court." This claim is
substantially the same as that raised in the circuit court.
VRS contends here that the APA, Code §§ 9-6.14:1 through -
14:25, "constitutes the Commonwealth's waiver of its sovereign
immunity in a limited and circumscribed context," and therefore
the APA "statutes and rules must be strictly construed."
Accordingly, VRS maintains that compliance with the appellate
"conditions and restrictions" is a jurisdictional requirement,
and suggests that the issue is either one of subject matter
jurisdiction or a mandatory condition precedent to the
maintenance of the action. VRS cites the following two cases:
Virginia Bd. of Medicine v. Virginia Physical Therapy Ass'n, 13
Va. App. 458, 465-66, 413 S.E.2d 59, 64 (1991), aff'd 245 Va.
3
125, 126, 427 S.E.2d 183, 184 (1993) (circuit court has no
subject matter jurisdiction under the APA to hear appeal of de
facto administrative rule when appellate right is statutorily
limited to that of a promulgated rule); Sabre Construction Corp.
v. County of Fairfax, 256 Va. 68, 72, 501 S.E.2d 144, 147
(1998) (claim barred by failure to file administrative appeal
within specifically limited period, condition precedent to
maintenance of action, which is part of statute creating cause
of action).
We disagree with VRS's argument, and conclude that neither
of the above-cited cases applies to the present appeal because
they applied limiting statutory provisions. In contrast,
nothing in our rules promulgated pursuant to the APA indicates
that service of process upon an opposing party is a necessary
prerequisite to the perfection of an appeal of an administrative
agency decision. Kessler v. Smith, 31 Va. App. 139, 144, 521
S.E.2d 774, 776 (1999). Hence, we hold that the circuit court
had jurisdiction over the appeal because Avery had perfected it
by filing her notice of appeal and her petition for appeal
within the times specified by Rules 2A:2 and 2A:4. Further,
Avery's alleged failure to have process properly served did not
divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.
See Hewitt v. Virginia Health Services Corp., 239 Va. 643, 645,
391 S.E.2d 59, 60 (1990) (failure to serve notice of tort claim
4
properly is procedural violation not affecting trial court's
subject matter jurisdiction).
We turn now to the remaining assignments of error dealing
with VRS's contentions that Avery was required to request that
process issue for service by a sheriff or private process server
and that the request and subsequent service must be within 30
days after Avery filed her notice of appeal. For the reasons
that follow, we find no merit in any of these contentions.
We consider first the following relevant provisions of Rule
2:2:
It shall be sufficient for the prayer of the bill to ask
for the specific relief sought, and to call for answer
under oath if desired. Without more it will be understood
that all the defendants mentioned in the caption are made
parties defendant and required to answer the bill of
complaint; that proper process against them is requested.
We agree with Avery that these plain provisions obviate such a
request for process to issue. Kessler, 31 Va. App. at 144, 521
S.E.2d at 776.
Although we do not agree with Avery's assertion that
process issued by the clerk, together with Avery's petition for
appeal, delivered by an express delivery service to VRS was a
proper service of process, 2 we agree with her that Code § 8.01-
288 cures the defective service. That Code section provides:
2
The proceedings in this case, including the purported
service by express delivery carrier, took place prior to
amendment of Rule 1:12, effective February 1, 1999, authorizing
5
Except for process commencing actions for divorce or
annulment of marriage or other actions wherein service of
process is specifically prescribed by statute, process
which has reached the person to whom it is directed within
the time prescribed by law, if any, shall be sufficient
although not served or accepted as provided in this
chapter.
There is no statute or rule specifically prescribing the
method for the service of process of a petition for the appeal
of an administrative ruling such as this one. Such service is
governed by the earlier quoted provision of Rule 2A:4, which
incorporates the steps for service of process pursuant to the
equity rules.
Additionally, Rule 2A:5 provides in pertinent part that
"[f]urther proceedings shall be held as in a suit in equity and
the rules contained in Part Two, where not in conflict with the
Code of Virginia or this part, shall apply." In our opinion,
the curative provisions of Code § 8.01-288 apply not only to
service of process in equity suits, but also to petitions for
appeals of administrative rulings.
VRS maintains, nevertheless, that Avery was required "to
request service of process on VRS within 30 days after filing
her notice of appeal." We disagree. Nothing in our rules
requires that Avery's request for service of process upon VRS be
made within 30 days of filing her petition for appeal, nor is
service of papers AFTER initial process through a "commercial
delivery service." The present opinion does not address the
6
there any provision precluding the entry of a decree against an
administrative agency which has not been served within that 30-
day period. Indeed, the only period stated that would preclude
the entry of a decree after delayed service upon an
administrative agency is the following one-year period stated in
Rule 2:4: "No decree shall be entered against a defendant who
was served with process more than one year after the institution
of the suit against him."
Rule 2:4 is not in conflict with the Code of Virginia or
the rules promulgated for APA appeals and is thus applicable
here under Rule 2A:5. Because process reached VRS within that
one-year period, we reject the contention of VRS that such
service was required within the 30-day period.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals
will be
Affirmed.
impact of the current Rule, if any, on these circumstances.
7