Board of Ed. of Cleveland City School Dist. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, 73-60

• Decision Date: 20 June 1973
• Docket Number: No. 73-60,73-60
• Citation: 63 O.O.2d 380,298 N.E.2d 125,34 Ohio St.2d 231
• Parties: , 63 O.O.2d 380 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CLEVELAND CITY SCHOOL DIST., Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 231

34 Ohio St.2d 231

298 N.E.2d 125, 63 O.O.2d 380

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CLEVELAND CITY SCHOOL DIST., Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.

No. 73-60.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 20, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A board of revision, in a hearing on a complaint as to the valuation of real property, is required to obtain all information, either from the parties or through its own independent investigation, necessary to perform its statutory duty.

2. A board of education which was not a complainant before a board of revision is not authorized to appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals from the decision of the board of revision.

This cause is a consolidated appeal from three decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals involving appellees, Avenue Development Co., ¹ F. W. Woolworth Co. ² and the Union Properties Division of the Union Commerce Bank, ³ hereinafter referred to as taxpayers.

Each case was commenced by the filing of a taxpayer's complaint with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, questioning the valuation of the taxpayer's real property for tax purposes. In each case, the board of revision granted a substantial reduction from the valuation determined by the Auditor of Cuyhoga County. The Board of Education of the Cleveland City School District, appellant herein, did not file complaints before the board of revision. ⁴

Subsequent to the granting of the reductions in each case, appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals. Each taxpayer filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and the Board of Tax Appeals sustained each motion under authority of Lindblom v. Board of Tax Appeals (1949), 151 Ohio St. 250, 85 N.E.2d 376.

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals by the Board of Education of the Cleveland City School District.

Kelley, McCann & Livingstone, Walter C. Kelley, Jr., and Michael L. Gordon, Cleveland, for appellant.

John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., and Thomas P. Cyrus, Cleveland, for appellee Cuyahoga County Board of Revision.

Arter & Hadden, Thomas V. Koykka, Cleveland, and Quentin Alexander, for appellee Union Properties Division of the Union Commerce Bank.

Kahn, Kleinman, Yanowitz & Arnson and Thomas L. Dettelbach, Cleveland, for appellee Avenue Development Co. Spieth, Bell McCurdy & Newell and Everett D. McCurdy, Cleveland, for appellee F. W. Woolworth Co.

STERN, Justice.

The specific issues before us is whether a decision of a board of revision, rendered pursuant to a complaint filed by a property owner, may be appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals by a board of education which did not file a complaint with the board of revision regarding the subject property. We hold that it may not.

It is axiomatic that there is no right of appeal from the decision of a statutory board, except as provided by statute. Paragraph two of the syllabus in Lindblom v. Board of Tax Appeals, supra (151 Ohio St. 250, 85 N.E.2d 376). Appellant argues that such a right of appeal exists by virtue of R.C. 5717.01, which provides that 'an appeal from a decision of a county board of revision may be taken to the board of tax appeals * * * by the county auditor or any person or public official authorized by Section 5715.19 of the Revised Code to file complaints against valuations or assessments with the auditor. * * *'

It is uncontested that the board of education is authorized by R.C. 5715.19 ⁵ to file such a complaint. Further, R.C. 5717.01 is the sole statute conferring jurisdiction upon the Board of Tax Appeals to hear and determine appeals from decisions rendered by a board of revision. The question then is whether authorized complainants under R.C. 5717.19 have a right of appeal regardless of whether they have filed a complaint.

A 'hearing' is a proceeding of relative formality, generally public, with definite issues of fact or of law to be tried, in which parties proceeded against have a right to be heard; an 'appeal' is a complaint to a higher tribunal of an error or injustice committed by a lower tribunal, in which the error or injustice is sought to be corrected or reversed. Black's Law Dictionary (4 Ed.). It is fundamental, therefore, that under ordinary circumstances only those who are parties at a hearing have a right of appeal. To hold otherwise would be to destroy the very purpose of the hearing, i. e., to collect all relevant evidence, and would permit an interested person, such as appellant herein, to not participate in the hearing, hoping for favorable results, and then, if the results were unfavorable, to become a party to an appeal and present additional evidence at the appellate level.

Appellant argues that if it is not entitled to appeal a decision of the board of revisions, unless it has been a complainant at the hearing, it would be forced to file complaints with the board of revision against the valuation of all properties in its district. Otherwise, appellant argues, a complainant as to one or more properties might receive a judgment adverse to the board of education from which it could not appeal. However, examination of R.C. Chapter 5715 provides evidence to the contrary.

R.C. 5715.01 provides that a board of revision shall 'hear complaints and revise assessments of real property for taxation.' R.C. 5715.19 provides that any taxpayer, or, among others named, any board of education, may file a complaint. Further, in accordance with the amendment to R.C. 5715.17, effective September 6, 1965 'the auditor shall furnish notice to boards of education of school districts within the county of all hearings, and the results of such hearings, held in regard to the reduction or increasing of tax valuations in excess of one hundred thousand dollars directly affecting the revenue of such district.' (Emphasis added.) Finally, R.C. 5715.10 authorizes a board of revision to 'call persons before it and examine them under oath as to their own or another's real property.'

It is evident, therefore, that a board of education will receive notice of all pending hearings. Having received such notice, it may then file a complaint, regarding the same property, in those instances where it deems such action advisable to protect its interest. Accordingly, it may become a complainant prior to the rendering of the decision by the board of revision. Such procedure provides a board of education an opportunity to protect its interest, and further enables the board of revision to assure that all relevant evidence will be presented at hearings.

We conclude that a board of revision is required to obtain all information, either from the parties or through independent investigation, necessary to perform its statutory duty to conduct hearings on complaints filed, and that more than one party may file a complaint, regarding the same property, to be heard by the board of revision.

R.C. 5717.01, which confers appellate jurisdiction, also provides that notice, which is a prerequisite to a right of appeal, must be sent in compliance with R.C. 5715.20. R.C. 5715.20 states that a board of revision 'shall certify its action by...