1979-06-06_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352 (13)

Home Browse Search

and must appear of record. People in Interest of S .S .T . , Unpub'd. Colo.App. , 553 P. 2d 82 (1976) . This requirement "cannot be ignored. " Storey vs. Shumaker, 131 Colo. 131, 279 P. 2d 1057, 1059 (1955) . In the instant case the underlying failure to comply with the statutory requirement is in the recc,rd (see supra pages 11- 13) . Clearly, such Board action cannot be tolerated and is a clear abuse of agency discretion. To permit such agency action would be to give ,'to the administrative agency the authority- of the legislature, and would result in administrative action which flies in the face of the explicit directive of our legislature which has required a form of notice which guaranties compliance with constitutional notions of fairness and protection of property interests . The courts in this state have been most strict regarding matters of notice and in Mountain States T. & T. , supra, written notice given to parties as provided by statute was even found to be inadequate as to constitutional due process require- ments. Defendant asserts that Colo. State Board of Medical Examiners vs. Palmer, 157 Colo. 40 , 400 P . 2d 914 (1965) stands for the proposition that actual notice suffices . First, actual notice was not affected on Plaintiff Trust Second, and more important, the Palmer case clearly demonstrates the length the courts in this state will go to, to assure that one entitled to statutory notice has his rights protected. The facts in Palmer are somewhat analogous to the instant facts in that notice by mail was required by statute, but it was never received . The Board made personal service, however , on Palmer several days prior to the hearing. In the case at hand , the Trust was never mailed notice, but retained counsel Goldstein several days prior to the hearing, and an attempt at that time -14-