Greenway Ohio, Inc. v. Bd. Of Rev., 2017-0297

• Decision Date: 23 October 2018
• Docket Number: No. 2017-0297,2017-0297
• Citation: 120 N.E.3d 792,2018 Ohio 4244,155 Ohio St.3d 230
• Parties: GREENWAY OHIO, INC., Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants; Testa Tax Commr., Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

155 Ohio St.3d 230

120 N.E.3d 792

2018 Ohio 4244

GREENWAY OHIO, INC., Appellant and Cross-Appellee,

v.CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants;

Testa Tax Commr., Appellee.

No. 2017-0297

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted September 11, 2018

Decided October 23, 2018

Chilcote Law Firm, L.L.P., Lee A. Chilcote, and David T. Dohnal; and Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Karen H. Bauernschmidt, Cleveland, Nicholas M.J. Ray, Columbus, and Heather M. Lutz, for appellant and cross-appellee.

Kadish, Hinkel & Weibel, Kevin M. Hinkel, Cleveland, and John P. Desimone, Lakewood, for appellee and cross-appellant Orange City School District Board of Education.

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark R. Greenfield, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees and cross-appellants Cuyahoga County Board of Revision and Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In this real-property-valuation case, the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") remanded the cause to appellee and cross-appellant Cuyahoga County Board of Revision ("BOR") with instructions for the BOR to dismiss the underlying valuation complaint. The BTA found that because the property owner's complaint was prepared and filed by a nonlawyer property manager, the complaint violated R.C. 5715.19(A) and failed to invoke the BOR's jurisdiction.

{¶ 2} The property owner, appellant and cross-appellee, Greenway Ohio, Inc., appeals the BTA's decision, arguing that the property manager's filing of the complaint did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law and that the complaint was sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the BOR. Alternatively, Greenway contends that the BTA improperly considered appellee and cross-appellant Orange City School District Board of Education's ("BOE's") motion to dismiss and violated Greenway's due-process rights by failing to hold a hearing on the jurisdictional issue presented.

{¶ 3} Because we find no merit in Greenway's arguments, we affirm the decision of the BTA.

I. FACTS

A. BOR proceedings

{¶ 4} In January 2016, Scott Sweeney, chief executive officer of Property Advisors, prepared and filed a decrease complaint with the BOR, challenging the fiscal officer's valuation of real property owned by Greenway. The complaint identified Sweeney as both the "complainant if not owner"¹ and "complainant's agent." Sweeney indicated his relationship to the owner as "property manager." But Sweeney is not an attorney, and no attorney was involved in the preparation and filing of the complaint. The BOE filed a countercomplaint, seeking to maintain the fiscal officer's initial valuation of the property.

{¶ 5} In May 2016, the BOE filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. After obtaining legal counsel, Greenway opposed the motion and submitted a letter authorizing Sweeney to represent Greenway as its "property tax agent."

{¶ 6} At the BOR hearing, both parties presented legal arguments regarding the jurisdictional issue; however, the BOR made no ruling on that issue and proceeded with the hearing. Greenway introduced the written appraisal and testimony of Paul O. Van Curen, an Ohio certified general-real-estate appraiser. The BOE cross-examined Van Curen but did not present any independent evidence.

{¶ 7} The BOR's oral-hearing journal summary indicates that the board found Sweeney's filing of the complaint to be the unauthorized practice of law. But the BOR nevertheless issued a merit decision maintaining the fiscal officer's value of the property. Greenway appealed to the BTA.

B. BTA proceedings

{¶ 8} At the BTA, as before the BOR, the BOE raised the issue of jurisdiction and requested that the BTA remand for dismissal of the complaint. Greenway opposed the request and submitted an affidavit by Sweeney, alleging that with respect to the property, Property Advisors acts in a fiduciary capacity for Greenway. Without a hearing, the BTA determined that Sweeney, acting in his capacity as a property manager, was not authorized under R.C. 5715.19(A) to file a complaint with the BOR on behalf of Greenway. The BTA concluded that "the underlying complaint failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the BOR" and remanded the matter to the BOR with instructions to dismiss the complaint. BTA No. 2016-2531, 2017 WL 1393428, *2.

{¶ 9} Before us today is Greenway's appeal from the BTA's decision and two protective cross-appeals, one filed jointly by the BOR and appellee and cross-appellant county fiscal officer and one filed by the BOE. Both cross-appeals challenge the factual basis of Sweeney's claim of property-manager status.

II. ANALYSIS

{¶ 10} The question whether a valuation complaint filed by a property manager on behalf of the property owner without the assistance of counsel is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the BOR is a question of law. We review issues of law de novo. Akron Centre Plaza, L.L.C. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 128 Ohio St.3d 145, 2010-Ohio-5035, 942 N.E.2d 1054, ¶ 10.

{¶ 11} R.C. 5715.19(A)" ‘establishes the jurisdictional gateway to obtaining review by the boards of revision,’ " Groveport Madison Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 137 Ohio St.3d 266, 2013-Ohio-4627, 998 N.E.2d 1132, ¶ 11, quoting Toledo Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 490, 2010-Ohio-253, 924 N.E.2d 345, ¶ 10, and provides that "[a]ny person owning taxable real property in the county * * * may file such a complaint regarding any such determination [including valuation] affecting any real property in the county * * *." And according to our case law, if someone other than the property owner prepares and files the complaint on behalf of the owner, that person must be an attorney or authorized by law to make such a filing. This is of particular importance in the case at hand, because here, the owner is a corporate entity, so it can obtain review by the BOR only if someone prepares and files the complaint on its behalf.

{¶ 12} In Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932 (1997), we examined the interplay between R.C. 4705.01 (the statute governing the practice of law in Ohio) and former versions of R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19 and concluded that "the preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision on behalf of a taxpayer constitute the practice of law" and that a complaint prepared and filed by an agent who is not a lawyer fails to invoke the board of revision's jurisdiction. Id. at 483, 678 N.E.2d 932. See also Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 134 Ohio St.3d 529, 2012-Ohio-5680, 983 N.E.2d 1285, ¶ 13-14 (explaining the reasoning underlying Sharon Village ).

{¶ 13} In response to Sharon Village and its progeny, the General Assembly amended R.C. 5715.19(A) to authorize certain nonlawyers to file valuation complaints on behalf of property owners. Sub.H.B. No. 694, 147 Ohio Laws, Part III, 5373. We have upheld these amendments because they do not substantially interfere with our regulation of the practice of law. See Marysville Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision, 136 Ohio St.3d 146, 2013-Ohio-3077, 991 N.E.2d 1134, ¶ 21-34 ; Columbus City School Dist. at ¶ 22-26. In so doing, we have carved out a narrow exception to the rule that only a licensed attorney may file complaints on behalf of a property owner with a county board of revision. See, e.g., Dayton Supply & Tool Co. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision , 111 Ohio St.3d 367, 2006-Ohio-5852, 856 N.E.2d 926, ¶ 32 (a corporate officer may file a real-property-valuation complaint on behalf of his or her corporation); Marysville Exempted Village School Dist. at ¶ 21-34 (salaried employee of a corporation who is not a lawyer may file a complaint on behalf of the corporation); Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. at ¶ 26 (a property owner's spouse may file a valuation complaint on behalf of the owner). And when, as here, the "person" who owns the real property is a corporation, R.C. 5715.19(A) permits a complaint to be filed by a nonattorney who is "an officer, a salaried employee, a partner, or a member of that person."

A. R.C. 5715.19(A) specifies nonlawyers who are authorized to file valuation complaints with boards of revision on behalf of property owners

{¶ 14} The underlying premise of Greenway's first and second propositions of law is that the list of persons specified in R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) is not an exhaustive list and that other authorized agents of the property owner may file a complaint on the property owner's behalf. Against this backdrop, Greenway argues that because Sweeney identified an agency relationship with the property owner on the face of the complaint and the relationship was later confirmed by a letter of authorization, Sweeney's filing of the complaint did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law and the complaint was sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the BOR.

{¶ 15} In support of this argument, Greenway cites Toledo Pub. Schools, 124 Ohio St.3d 490, 2010-Ohio-253, 924 N.E.2d 345. But that case is materially distinguishable. In Toledo Pub. Schools, a lawyer, acting on behalf of the property-management company, Vistula Management Company, prepared and filed a valuation complaint on behalf of Vistula, which was acting as the agent of the property owner. In our decision, we specifically noted that the issue of the unauthorized practice of law did not arise because a lawyer had been involved in the preparation and filing of the complaint. Id. at ¶ 22. By contrast, the record in this appeal contains no indication that an attorney was involved in the preparation and filing of the underlying complaint.

{¶ 16} It is true that in Toledo Pub. Schools, we disagreed with the board of education's argument that the list of persons specified in R.C. 5715.19(A) was intended to be exhaustive and we rejected the contention that the management company could not act as an agent of the...