MORSE, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Environmental Division affirming an administrative finding of the Natural Resources Board that respondents’ gravel-extraction activities violated an Act 250 residential-subdivision permit. Respondents contend the enforcement action and trial court judgment were based on an expired Act 250 permit, and therefore invalid. We affirm.
The claim that Act 250 permit had expired either by its terms or by operation of law—was one that could and should have been raised in earlier administrative and judicial proceedings between the parties. Accordingly, we conclude that the claim is barred.by principles of res judicata.
Respondents further assert that—res judicata notwithstanding—if the permit had expired then the courts were without subject matter jurisdiction over this Act 250 enforcement action, “Subject matter jurisdiction” refers to the fundamental “power of a court to hear and determine a general class or category of cases.” It is a concept easy to confuse with the simple authority to act, and we have, accordingly, been careful to limit the concept in Act 250 and other administrative contexts, where the agency generally exercises limited powers and “virtually any disagreement with its actions can be phrased in jurisdictional terms.” This is not a case where the parties fundamentally “failed to adjudicate the case in the proper statutorily designated administrative tribunal before proceeding to the superior court.” Brace v. Vergennes Auto, Inc., 2009 VT 49, ¶ 16, 186 Vt. 542, 978 A.2d 441 (mem.). Accordingly, we find no reason to exempt respondents’ claim from the general claim-preclusion rules, and affirm the judgment on this basis.
How cited.
The claim that Act 250 permit had expired either by its terms or by operation of law—was one that could and should have been raised in earlier administrative and judicial proceedings between the parties. Accordingly, we conclude that the claim is barred.by principles of res judicata.
Respondents further assert that—res judicata notwithstanding—if the permit had expired then the courts were without subject matter jurisdiction over this Act 250 enforcement action, “Subject matter jurisdiction” refers to the fundamental “power of a court to hear and determine a general class or category of cases.” It is a concept easy to confuse with the simple authority to act, and we have, accordingly, been careful to limit the concept in Act 250 and other administrative contexts, where the agency generally exercises limited powers and “virtually any disagreement with its actions can be phrased in jurisdictional terms.” This is not a case where the parties fundamentally “failed to adjudicate the case in the proper statutorily designated administrative tribunal before proceeding to the superior court.” Brace v. Vergennes Auto, Inc., 2009 VT 49, ¶ 16, 186 Vt. 542, 978 A.2d 441 (mem.). Accordingly, we find no reason to exempt respondents’ claim from the general claim-preclusion rules, and affirm the judgment on this basis.
How cited.
No comments:
Post a Comment