Gammarino v. Hamilton County Bd. of Revision
| Decision Date | 08 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-164,97-164 |
| Citation | 684 N.E.2d 309,80 Ohio St.3d 32 |
| Parties | GAMMARINO et al., Appellees, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, Appellee; Rhodes, Hamilton County Auditor, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Appellant raises two primary arguments: that an unrelated lay person may not file and prosecute a complaint before a board of revision, and that such representation by a lay person constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
Appellees have not filed briefs with this court.
Subsequent to the BTA's decision in this matter on January 3, 1997, we decided Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932, which involved a real estate valuation complaint filed with a board of revision by a nonattorney. In Sharon Village Ltd., the sole question before us was whether a nonlawyer-agent filing complaints with a board of revision was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. After reviewing the procedures before a board of revision and exploring some of the ramifications of filing a complaint, we interpreted the term "agent" in R.C. 5715.13 to include the affected party's attorney. Id. at 483, 678 N.E.2d at 936. We then went on to hold "that the preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision on behalf of a taxpayer constitute the practice of law." Id. Since the tax agent involved in Sharon Village Ltd. was not an attorney, his actions in filing the complaints constituted the unauthorized practice of law. In Sharon Village Ltd. we affirmed the BTA's decision, which held that the complaints filed with the board of revision were not "sufficient to repose jurisdiction in the Licking County BOR." Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (Dec. 1, 1995), Board of Tax Appeals, No. 94-M-1214, unreported. We affirmed the dismissal of the appeals.
The facts of the present case and our decision in Sharon Village Ltd. require us to hold that Gammarino was not an "agent" within the meaning of R.C. 5715.13 for the purpose of filing the complaint in question with the BOR. Not being an "agent," Gammarino's filing of the complaint constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
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 that "full compliance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Elections
...complaint with a board of revision on behalf of a taxpayer constitute the practice of law." See, also, Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 32, 684 N.E.2d 309. In so holding, we relied on several factors, including that (1) the board of revision is a quasi-judici......
-
Jean D. Matteo v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
...Supreme Court of Ohio, no case has forbidden persons having a connection to the owners from acting as agents pursuant to R.C. 5715.13. Gammarino, supra, mentioned that the owner's representative listed as agent was an unrelated lay person. A close family member obviously has a connection to......
-
Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision
...to verify whether he in fact had standing to file the complaint given this court's recent decision, Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 32, 684 N.E.2d 309, involving this same appellant. Rather than responding to the BTA's show-cause order that he is the true pr......
-
Board of Education of the Whitehall City School District v. Franklin County Board of Revision
... ... the action." (Citations omitted.) As noted in ... Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd ... of Revision (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 308, 314 "*** the ... critical inquiry for purposes of determining the vesting of ... jurisdiction ... ownership in the subject property, the complaint he filed ... before the FCBOR is jurisdictionally invalid. See ... Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), ... 80 Ohio St.3d 32 (holding that a non-attorney was not an ... agent within the meaning of R.C. 5715.13 ... ...