Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 99-82.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam. |
| Citation | 721 NE 2d 40,87 Ohio St.3d 363 |
| Parties | CINCINNATI SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. |
| Docket Number | No. 99-82.,99-82. |
| Decision Date | 05 January 2000 |
87 Ohio St.3d 363
721 NE 2d 40
v.
HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES
No. 99-82.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted June 23, 1999.
Decided January 5, 2000.
Keating, Muething & Klekamp, P.L.L., Kenneth P. Kreider and Dwight A. Packard II, for appellee Candlewood, Ltd.
Per Curiam.
The BOE contends that the BTA had no authority to set aside the BOR's order of August 18, 1997. We agree.
A timely complaint against the valuation of the property was filed by the BOE seeking an increase in taxable value of $151,900 for tax year 1996. R.C. 5715.19(B) provides that when a complaint is filed by someone other than the owner and the amount of the stated undervaluation is at least $17,500 the auditor is to give notice of the complaint to the property owner. R.C. 5715.19(B) further provides that within thirty days after receiving the notice the property owner may file a complaint objecting to the claim of undervaluation and be made a party to the action. R.C. 5715.19(C) also provides that the board of revision shall notify the property owner at least ten days prior to a hearing of its time and place. In addition to the notice requirements of R.C. 5715.19, R.C. 5715.12 provides that the board of revision shall not increase any valuation without giving notice to the person in whose name the property affected is listed and affording him or her the opportunity to be heard. Finally, when the board of revision renders its decision, R.C. 5715.20 requires that it give notice of its action by certified mail to the person in whose name the property is listed.
The BOE contends that the BOR's actions were proper because the BOE's complaint named as property owner, and notices were given to, the person listed as owner on the auditor's records. A review of the various provisions of R.C. Chapter 5715 shows that different terms are used to describe the person to whom the required notice is to be given. R.C. 5715.19 requires notice to the "property owner"; R.C. 5715.12 requires notice to be given "to the person in whose name the property affected * * * is listed"; R.C. 5715.20 requires notice to "the person in whose name the property is listed."
In State ex rel. Rolling Hills Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Brown (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 520, 521, 589 N.E.2d 1265, 1266, we stated, "The auditor prepares the tax list pursuant to R.C. 319.28. On the tax list, he records, inter alia, all the parcels in the county, the names of their owners, and the taxing district in which each parcel is located." R.C. 319.20 describes how the auditor shall transfer ownership of land on the tax list: "[T]he county auditor shall transfer any land * * * charged with taxes on the tax list, from the name in which it stands into the name of the owner, when rendered necessary by a conveyance * * *." See, also, R.C. 323.17. Clearly, the auditor's tax list is to contain the name of the owners. It is presumed that the auditor does his or her job correctly and that the tax list contains the correct names of the owners of the property. However, as demonstrated by the facts in this case, when a complainant filing a complaint for valuation of real property relies upon the auditor's tax list he or she does so at his or her peril. If the auditor's tax list is not correct and a complainant files a complaint listing an incorrect name, then the notices given by the board of revision will be given to the wrong persons, the notice requirement of R.C. Chapter 5715 will not be met, and the actual owner will not receive any of the required notices.
The giving of notice to a person who is incorrectly listed on the auditor's tax list as the owner does not meet the notice requirements of R.C. Chapter 5715. In Columbus Apartments Assoc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 85, 89-90, 21 O.O.3d 54, 57, 423 N.E.2d 147, 150, we stated, "In that it is the owner's, not the school board's, property which is the subject of the complaint and evaluation proceeding before a board of revision, the owner is an indispensable party to that proceeding."
The consequences of not giving notice to an indispensable party, like the actual owner, were set forth in Lincoln Tavern, Inc. v. Snader (1956), 165 Ohio St. 61, 64, 59 O.O. 74, 75-76, 133 N.E.2d 606, 610, where we stated, "It is axiomatic that for a court to acquire jurisdiction there must be a proper service of summons or
Because the notices required by R.C. Chapter 5715 were not given to Candlewood prior to the BOR's July 2, 1997 hearing and after its August 18, 1997 decision, and no voluntary appearance was made by Candlewood, the BOR's August 18, 1997 decision is a nullity and void as regards Candlewood. As one Texas appellate court so aptly stated concerning a void judgment, "[i]t is good nowhere and bad everywhere." Dews v. Floyd (Tex.Civ.App.1967), 413 S.W.2d 800, 804.
Almost a year after the original complaint had been filed the BOR discovered that no notices had been sent to Candlewood. In an attempt to remedy the lack of notice, the BOR sent a letter to Candlewood on March 16, 1998, notifying it that a complaint had been filed by the BOE. On April 7, 1998, the BOR notified Candlewood that a hearing was to be held on April 30, 1998.
A review of the relevant statute shows that neither of the notices sent to Candlewood by the BOR was timely. R.C. 5715.19 requires that the notice of the filing of the complaint was to have been sent to Candlewood by April 30, 1997. No notice of the filing of the BOR complaint was sent to Candlewood until March 16, 1998. In addition, Candlewood was never notified of the original BOR hearing on July 2, 1997. No notice of any hearing was sent to Candlewood until April 7, 1998.
R.C. 5715.20 provides that any decision of the BOR rendered on a complaint filed under R.C. 5715.19 is to be sent to the person in whose name the property is listed. The notice of the result of the July 2, 1997 hearing was sent out August 18, 1997, but no copy was sent to Candlewood.
R.C. 5717.01 and 5717.05 permit an appeal of a board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re H.S., Case Nos. 16CA3569, 16CA3570.
...simply recognizes the fact that the judgment was always a nullity." Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Hamilton Co. Bd. of Revision,87 Ohio St.3d 363, 368, [721 N.E.2d 40] (2000), citing Van DeRyt v. Van DeRyt,6 Ohio St.2d 31, 36, 35 O.O.2d 42, 215 N.E.2d 698 (1966). Id. at ¶ 17–19.{¶ 38......
-
In re J.T., 18CA9
..., 119 Ohio St.3d 233, 2008-Ohio-3192, 893 N.E.2d 457, ¶ 20 ; Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision , 87 Ohio St.3d 363, 366–367, 721 N.E.2d 40 (2000). "Thus, a valid court judgment requires both proper service under the applicable Ohio rules and adequate notic......
-
Bielat v. Bielat, 98-2386.
...LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur separately in judgment. F.E. SWEENEY, J., concurs in judgment only. 87 Ohio St.3d 363 DOUGLAS, J., concurring. While the majority opinion is interesting, and even useful in further clarifying Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.......
-
Colonial Village v. Bd. of Rev., 2006-1000.
...decision the BTA rendered would be a nullity. See, e.g., Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 363, 366-367, 721 N.E.2d 40. 114 Ohio St.3d 498 Our holding in Cleveland Elec. Illum. applied only to future cases and cases that were pending;......