Columbus Apartments Associates v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision, s. 80-1535 and 81-90

• Citation: 423 N.E.2d 147,67 Ohio St.2d 85,21 O.O.3d 54
• Decision Date: 08 July 1981
• Docket Number: Nos. 80-1535 and 81-90,s. 80-1535 and 81-90
• Parties: , 21 O.O.3d 54 COLUMBUS APARTMENTS ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees. The ARCADE COMPANY, LTD., Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVISION OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY et al., Appellees.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Page 85

67 Ohio St.2d 85

423 N.E.2d 147, 21 O.O.3d 54

COLUMBUS APARTMENTS ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.

The ARCADE COMPANY, LTD., Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVISION OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY et al., Appellees.

Nos. 80-1535 and 81-90.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

July 8, 1981.

Syllabus by the Court

1. When a third-party taxpayer has filed a complaint with a county board of revision seeking to increase the taxable valuation of another's property and, after a hearing, the board increases the valuation, the property owner may appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals pursuant to R.C. 5717.01.

2. In such a case, it is unnecessary for the property owner to have filed a complaint with the board of revision, pursuant to R.C. 5715.19, in order to appeal a decision of that body to the Board of Tax Appeals.

In case No. 80-1535, appellant Columbus Apartments Associates owns real property in Franklin County. In January 1980, the Columbus Board of Education filed a series of real estate complaints with the Franklin County Board of Revision, seeking to increase the taxable value of certain parcels of real estate owned by appellant. The appellant was given notice of these complaints and, after a hearing, the board of revision issued a final decision increasing the taxable valuation on virtually all the parcels in question.

In case No. 81-90, appellant Arcade Company, Ltd., owns real property in Cuyahoga County. In that case, the Cleveland Board of Education filed a complaint with the Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, seeking an increase in the taxable value of real property owned by the appellant. After notice to the appellant and a hearing, the board of revision increased the value of the property.

The appellants in these cases appealed the respective decisions to the Board of Tax Appeals. In each case, the Board of Tax Appeals dismissed the appeal because neither appellant had filed a complaint before the respective board of revision.

These cases have been consolidated for final disposition by this court because they raise the same question. The causes are now before this court as appeals of right.

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Roger F. Day, Columbus, for appellant in case No. 80-1535.

Teaford, Rich & Dorsey and Jeffrey A. Rich, Columbus, for appellee Columbus Bd. of Edn. in case No. 80-1535.

Ford, Whitney & Schulz, Isaac Schulz and C. Douglas Lovett, Cleveland, for appellant in case No. 81-90.

Kelley, McCann & Livingstone, Timothy J. Armstrong and Michael L. Gordon, Cleveland, for appellee Cleveland Bd. of Edn. in case No. 81-90.

John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., and Jeffrey Sherwin, Cleveland, for appellee Cuyahoga Co. Bd. of Revision et al. in case No. 81-90.

HOLMES, Justice.

We reverse the decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals.

R. C. 5717.01 confers jurisdiction upon the Board of Tax Appeals (board) to hear appeals from the various county boards of revision. In pertinent part, R.C. 5717.01 provides:

"An appeal from a decision of a county board of revision may be taken to the board of tax appeals within thirty days after notice of the decision of the county board of revision is mailed as provided in section 5715.20 of the Revised Code, by the county auditor, the tax commissioner, or any person or public official authorized by SECTION 5715.19 OF THE REVISED CODE¹ to file complaints against valuations or assessments with the auditor. * * * "

Although each appellant landowner is authorized by R.C. 5715.19 to file a complaint, the board ruled that since neither had filed a complaint, they were not proper persons, under R.C. 5717.01, to appeal the decisions of the respective boards of revision. In support of its results, the board inappropriately relied upon the following language from North Olmsted v. Bd. of Revision (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 218, 219, 404 N.E.2d 757:

"This court has held that only complainants before the board of revision have standing to appeal a determination by that body to the Board of Tax Appeals. Bd. of Edn. v. Bd. of Revision (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 231 (298 N.E.2d 125); Lindblom v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1949), 151 Ohio St. 250 (85 N.E.2d 376)." (Footnotes omitted.)

In basing its decisions upon the above quoted language from North Olmsted v. Bd. of Revision, the board ignored an essentially important factual distinction in that case, as well as the factual distinctions to be found in the other similar cases decided by this court. That factual distinction is the status of the person or entity attempting to appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals.

In North Olmsted, supra, the appellants were the city of North Olmsted and the North Olmsted Board of Education, not the owner of the property in question. In Bd. of Edn. v. Bd. of Revision, supra, the appellant again was not the property owner, but the Cleveland Board of Education. In Lindblom, supra, in like manner, the appellant was not the owner of the property. All of those appellants sought review of a decision of the county board of revision which, upon the property owner's complaint, decreased the taxable value of the owner's property. Here, the appellants are property owners who seek a review of boards or revision decisions which had increased the taxable value of their respective properties.

Certainly, this court has never held that a property owner would be denied the right of appeal of a property evaluation for tax purposes merely because he had not filed a complaint with a board of revision. We conclude that the statutory scheme of providing a property owner procedural safeguards is to the contrary.

Exemplary of the safeguards provided the property owner where the taxable value of his property is at issue is R.C. 5715.19, which provides for notice to the taxpayer whenever any tax complaint is filed concerning his property. This section provides that upon the filing of any such complaint, the board of revision shall " * * * notify any such complainant and also the property owner, if his address is known, when the complaint is filed by one other than the property owner, by certified mail, not less than ten days prior to the hearing, of the time and place the same will be heard * * *." A further procedural requirement protecting the property owner is to be found in R.C. 5715.12, which expressly prohibits the board of revision from increasing the valuation of property when a complaint has been filed without first giving the property owner notice and an opportunity to be heard. ² When the board renders its decision, R.C. 5715.20 requires the board to certify its action to the property owner. That section states in part:

"Whenever a county board of revision renders a decision of a complaint filed under section 5715.19 of the Revised Code, it shall certify its action by...