Buckeye Foods v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, s. 96-1577

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Citation: 78 Ohio St.3d 459,678 N.E.2d 917
• Docket Number: Nos. 96-1577,s. 96-1577
• Parties: BUCKEYE FOODS, Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees. to 96-1579 and 96-1580.
• Decision Date: 21 May 1997

Page 459

78 Ohio St.3d 459 678 N.E.2d 917 BUCKEYE FOODS, Appellant,
v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees. Nos. 96-1577 to 96-1579 and 96-1580. Supreme Court of Ohio. Submitted Jan. 14, 1997.
Decided May 21, 1997.

Arter & Hadden, and Karen H. Bauernschmidt, Cleveland, for appellant.

Armstrong, Mitchell & Damiani, Timothy J. Armstrong and Victor V. Anselmo, Cleveland, for appellee Cleveland Board of Education.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and David G. Lambert, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Cuyahoga County Board of Revision and Cuyahoga County Auditor.

PER CURIAM.

Buckeye Foods, first, claims that Cleveland waived the standing issue by not raising it at the BOR, its first opportunity to challenge Buckeye Foods' status. Cleveland replies that standing is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. We agree with Cleveland.

According to New Boston Coke Corp. v. Tyler (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 216, 218, 513 N.E.2d 302, 305, " * * * the issue of standing, inasmuch as it is jurisdictional in nature, may be raised at any time during the pendency of the proceedings. See United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co. (1956), 351 U.S. 192, 197 [76 S.Ct. 763, 767, 100 L.Ed. 1081, 1088]."

These complaints were filed under R.C. 5715.19, which sets forth the general complaint process, and R.C. 5715.13, which prevents a board of revision from

Page 461

decreasing [678 N.E.2d 919] any valuation complained of unless filed by "the party affected thereby or his agent." Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 226, 658 N.E.2d 267. Complaints filed under these statutes are jurisdictional. In Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 235, 67 O.O.2d 296, 298, 313 N.E.2d 14, 16, we held, "full compliance with R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13 is necessary before a county board of revision is empowered to act on the merits of a claim." Accord N. Olmsted v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 218, 220, 16 O.O.3d 249, 250, 404 N.E.2d 757, 759 ("We held [R.C. 5715.19] to be jurisdictional in Stanjim Co. v. Bd. of Revision * * *."). Under this authority, Buckeye Foods' standing to file valuation complaints on these properties is jurisdictional, and Cleveland could not waive its challenge to Buckeye Foods' standing.

Turning to the standing question, Buckeye Foods primarily argues that "Buckeye Foods" is a generic name that refers to all the various corporations and entities in which Eanes had an interest. Thus, Buckeye Foods claims, Eanes was the party affected thereby and could file the complaints. Cleveland, of course, disagrees, as do we.

We agree with the BTA that Buckeye Foods is a fictitious name. R.C. 1329.01 defines "fictitious name" as "a name used in business or trade that is fictitious and that the user has not registered or is not entitled to register as a trade name * * *." R.C. 1329.10(B) prevents a person from commencing or maintaining an action in a fictitious name until the person has registered the name...