Franzo v. N.C. Div. of Emp't Sec.

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with

the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA25-724

Filed 6 May 2026

Cabarrus County, No. 24CV005448-120

LAURA FRANZO, Petitioner,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent.

Appeal by Petitioner from order entered 5 February 2025 by Judge Eric C.

Morgan in Cabarrus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25

February 2026.

Laura Franzo, pro se, petitioner-appellant

Chynna T. Smith and Sharon J. Martin, for respondent-appellee North

Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security.

STADING, Judge.

Laura Franzo (“Petitioner”), appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her petition

for judicial review of the Employment Security Division’s Board of Review’s (the

“Board of Review”) decision in Higher Authority Decision No. 24-HA-001625 on 5

February 2025. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s

order.

FRANZO V. N.C. DIV. OF EMP’T SEC.

Opinion of the Court

I. Background

On 10 October 2024, the Board of Review decided that Petitioner was overpaid

benefits such as unemployment insurance benefits and federal supplemental

benefits. On 5 November 2024, Petitioner petitioned for judicial review with the

Cabarrus County Clerk of Superior Court. Petitioner properly served the petition for

judicial review on the North Carolina Department of Commerce and the Division of

Employment Security (or “DES”) consistent with the requirements set forth in N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 96-15(h). Petitioner did not, however, serve the petition on the employer,

Marriott Hotel Services Inc. (“Marriott”).

On 27 December 2024, the Division of Employment Security moved to dismiss

the petition for failure to serve the employer with a copy for judicial review under

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 96-15(h). The trial court issued an order granting the Division of

Employment Security’s motion to dismiss on 5 February 2025. That order provided:

1. On or about October 10, 2024, Petitioner was mailed

Higher Authority Decision No. 24-HA-001625.

2. Petitioner filed a Petition for Judicial Review on

November 5, 2024, with the Cabarrus County Clerk of

Superior Court.

3. Section 96-15(h) of the North Carolina General Statutes

provides that within 10 days after the petition is filed

with the court, petitioner must serve copies of the

petition by personal service or by certified mail, return

receipt requested, upon the Division and upon all

parties of record to the Division proceedings.

-2-

FRANZO V. N.C. DIV. OF EMP’T SEC.

Opinion of the Court

4. The employer, Marriott, is a party of record to the

Division proceedings, and, consequently, Petitioner was

required to serve the employer with a copy of the filed

petition within 10 days of filing it with the court by

personal service or by certified mail.

5. Petitioner did not serve the employer, a party to the

Division proceedings, with a copy of the petition for

judicial review within 10 days, or at any point

thereafter, by personal service or by certified mail,

return receipt requested as required by N.C. Gen. Stat.

Section 96-15(h).

6. These statutory service requirements are jurisdictional,

and, since Petitioner failed to properly or timely serve

the employer by proper service methods, [DES’s] Motion

to Dismiss the Petition should be granted, in that this

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

7. Due to Petitioner’s failure to comply with the

mandatory requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 96-

15(h), the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and

the Petition for Judicial Review in this matter should

be dismissed in accordance with [DES’s] Motion to

Dismiss.

Petitioner then entered a timely notice of appeal.

II. Analysis

Petitioner’s appeal,1 which presents thirty-six enumerated issues in an

extensive brief,2 challenges the trial court’s order dismissing her petition for judicial

review based on the jurisdictional requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 96-15(h) (2025).

1 We acknowledge Petitioner’s pro se status. Nonetheless, “even pro se appellants must adhere strictly

to the Rules of Appellate Procedure[.]” Strauss v. Hunt, 140 N.C. App. 345, 348–49, 536 S.E.2d 636,

639 (2000).

2 Petitioner’s brief generally fails to comply with N.C. R. App. 28(b).

-3-

FRANZO V. N.C. DIV. OF EMP’T SEC.

Opinion of the Court

“[N]o appeal lies from an order or decision of an administrative agency of the

State . . . unless the right is granted by statute . . . . Obviously then, the appeal must

conform to the statute granting the right and regulating the procedure.” In re Emp.

Sec. Comm’n, 234 N.C. 651, 653, 68 S.E.2d 311,312 (1951) (citation omitted). In its

entirety, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 96-15(h) (emphasis added) provides:

Judicial Review. — A decision of the Board of Review

becomes final 30 days after the date of notification or

mailing of the decision, whichever is earlier, unless a party

to the decision seeks judicial review as provided in this

subsection. Judicial review is permitted only after a party

claiming to be aggrieved by the decision has exhausted the

remedies provided in this Chapter and has filed a petition

for review in the superior court of the county in which the

petitioner resides or the county in which the petitioner’s

principal place of business is located. The petition for

review must explicitly state what exceptions are taken to

the decision or procedure and what relief the petitioner

seeks. Within 10 days after the petition is filed with the

court, the petitioner must serve copies of the petition by

personal service or by certified mail, return receipt

requested, upon the Division and upon all parties of record

to the Division proceedings. The Division must furnish the

petitioner, upon request, the names and addresses of the

parties as found in the records of the Division. The Division

is a party to any judicial action involving any of its

decisions and may be represented in the judicial action by

any qualified attorney who has been designated by it for

that purpose. Any questions regarding the requirements of

this subsection concerning the service or filing of a petition

shall be determined by the superior court. Any party to the

Division proceeding may become a party to the review

proceeding by notifying the court within 10 days after

receipt of the copy of the petition. Any person aggrieved

may petition to become a party by filing a motion to

intervene as provided in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 24.

-4-

FRANZO V. N.C. DIV. OF EMP’T SEC.

Opinion of the Court

Within 45 days after receipt of the copy of the petition for

review or within such additional time as the court may

allow, the Division must transmit to the reviewing court

the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the

proceedings under review. With the permission of the court

the record may be shortened by stipulation of all parties to

the review proceedings. Any party unreasonably refusing

to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court

for the additional cost incurred by the refusal. The court

may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions

to the record when the court considers the changes

desirable.

Marriott was listed as a party in the caption of Higher Authority Decision No.

24-HA-001625. Additionally, in the administrative proceedings, Marriot was a

necessary party. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 96-15(a) (2025) (“Claims for benefits must be

made in accordance with rules adopted by the Division. . . .”); see also, e.g., 4 N.C.

Admin. Code 24C.0104 (2026) (“[T]he employer shall be a party with appeal rights to

a determination ruling on the merits of the specific issue raised by the employer if

the employer is . . . named as the last employer on the claimant’s initial claim[.]”).

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 96-15(h) prescribes a deadline for service known as a

“jurisdictional” deadline. Isenberg v. N.C. DOC, 241 N.C. App. 68, 70–71, 772 S.E.2d

97, 99 (2015). Typically, there are two categories of rules with respect to deadlines

in our judicial system: “jurisdictional rules, which affect a court’s power to hear the

dispute, and procedural rules, which ensure that the legal system adjudicates the

claim in an orderly way.” Tillet v. Town of Kill Devil Hills, 257 N.C. App. 223, 225,

809 S.E.2d 145, 147 (2017). Failure to comply with a jurisdictional rule mandates

-5-

FRANZO V. N.C. DIV. OF EMP’T SEC.

Opinion of the Court

dismissal. See, e.g., Williams v. N.C. Doc, 286 N.C. App. 381, 878 S.E.2d 684 (2022)

(unpublished) (citation omitted) (“Failure to comply with a jurisdictional

deadline deprives the reviewing court of jurisdiction, leaving the court with no

authority to act other than to dismiss the matter for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.”).

Thus, for a court to have jurisdiction over the issue under subsection 95-15(h)

judicial review proceedings, Petitioner was required to serve Marriott within “10 days

after the petition is filed with the court.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-15(h). Petitioner did

not serve Marriot pursuant to subsection 95-15(h). As our Court has previously held,

“[n]othing in the many amendments to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 96-15(h) to date have

changed the mandatory nature of the service requirements.” Isenberg, 241 N.C. App.

at 73, 772 S.E.2d at 100. Consequently, since the service requirements of subsection

96-15(h) are jurisdictional, the trial court properly determined it lacked jurisdiction.

Id. The trial court did not err in dismissing Petitioner’s petition. Id.

III. Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s order since Petitioner’s appeal failed to conform with

the service requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 96-15(h).

AFFIRMED.

Chief Judge DILLON and Judge ARROWOOD concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

-6-