Groveport Madison Local Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision

• Citation: 998 N.E.2d 1132,137 Ohio St.3d 266
• Decision Date: 24 October 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2012–1476.,2012–1476.
• Parties: GROVEPORT MADISON LOCAL SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, et al., Appellees; Public Storage/Public Storage Business Trust, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

137 Ohio St.3d 266
998 N.E.2d 1132

GROVEPORT MADISON LOCAL SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee,
v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, et al., Appellees; Public Storage/Public Storage Business Trust, Appellant.

No. 2012–1476.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted June 5, 2013.
Decided Oct. 24, 2013.

[998 N.E.2d 1133]

Sleggs, Danzinger & Gill Co., L.P.A., Todd W. Sleggs, and Robert K. Danzinger, Cleveland, for appellant.

Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., Mark H. Gillis, Karol C. Fox, Jeffrey A. Rich, and Allison J. Crites, Dublin, for appellee Groveport Madison Local Schools Board of Education.

FRENCH, J.

{¶ 1} This case concerns the 2008 tax-year valuation of real property in Franklin County, Ohio. The Franklin County Board of Revision (“BOR”) reduced the auditor's valuation of the property in response to a valuation complaint, but on appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) remanded with instructions that the BOR dismiss the valuation complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint misidentified the owner of the subject property. A successor owner of the property now argues that the BTA erred in concluding that the BOR lacked jurisdiction. We agree. Therefore, we reverse and remand this matter to the BTA.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On March 31, 2009, the John W. Messmore Living Trust filed a valuation complaint, seeking a reduction of the Franklin County auditor's valuation of a 3.781–acre self-storage facility in southeast Columbus for tax-year 2008. The valuation complaint consists of a preprinted form prescribed by the Tax Commissioner. SeeR.C. 5715.30. Attorney James Hunter, who is identified as the complainant's agent and the owner's attorney, signed the complaint on the trust's behalf. The complaint identifies the trust as the “[o]wner of property” and does not identify anyone as “[c]omplainant if not owner.” The line of the complaint labeled “Complainant's relationship to property if not owner” is blank.

{¶ 3} In response to the trust's complaint, the Groveport Madison Local Schools Board of Education (“BOE”) filed a countercomplaint, requesting retention of the auditor's valuation of $2,167,100.

{¶ 4} At a hearing before the BOR, the trust submitted an appraisal, which valued the property at $1,600,000 as of January 1, 2008. Contrary to the trust's identification of itself as the owner of the subject property, the appraisal and the auditor's property record, which was also submitted to the BOR, identify the owner of the property

[998 N.E.2d 1134]

as Hamilton–33 Partnership. The cover letter to the appraisal is addressed to John Messmore, Hamilton–33 Partnership. Both the appraisal and the property record list the property owner's address as 3540 LaRochelle Drive in Columbus, the same address listed for the trust on the valuation complaint. Despite these inconsistencies regarding the identity of the property owner, the BOE did not contest the trust's standing or the BOR's jurisdiction to hear the valuation complaint. On May 27, 2010, the BOR ordered a reduction of the property value to $1,600,000, as requested by the trust.

{¶ 5} The BOE appealed the BOR's order to the BTA. The BOE's notice of appeal identifies the trust as the complainant and Hamilton–33 Partnership as the owner of the subject property. On May 29, 2012, Hunter notified the BTA that the subject property had been sold at sheriff's sale and that the new property owner was Public Storage of Glendale, California.

{¶ 6} On July 29, 2012, the BOE moved the BTA to remand this matter to the BOR with instructions to dismiss the trust's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The BOE argued that “the Complaint fails to meet a core procedural requirement and must be dismissed,” because it did not identify Hamilton–33 Partnership as the owner of the property. Public Storage opposed the BOE's motion. It conceded that the trust did not hold legal title to the property when the complaint was filed, but argued that the trust had standing to file the valuation complaint under R.C. 5715.19(A), as the owner of other property in Franklin County. Public Storage submitted screen shots from the Franklin County auditor's website, purporting to show the trust's ownership of three other properties in Franklin County as of the date of the valuation complaint. The screen shots identify the owner of those properties as “Messmore John W Tr.” Public Storage also argued that the trust was a party affected by the valuation, as required by R.C. 5715.13(A), because it held an ownership interest in Hamilton–33 Partnership. The BOE did not expressly contest the trust's standing, but instead focused on the BOR's subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that “[t]he sole jurisdictional issue raised in this matter centers around the fact that the face of the Complaint as filed fails to identify the legal title holder of record for the Subject Property at issue.”

{¶ 7} The BTA granted the motion to remand for dismissal, holding that the BOR lacked jurisdiction over the trust's complaint because the complaint did not correctly identify the legal owner of the subject property. The BTA refused to address Public Storage's arguments regarding the trust's standing. It stated that those arguments “have no bearing on whether the property owner, as listed on line 1 of the complaint, was proper.” BTA No. 2010–A–1290, 2012 WL 3279121, at *2 (July 31, 2012). Public Storage appealed to this court pursuant to R.C. 5717.04.

Analysis

{¶ 8} This case presents an issue regarding the jurisdictional sufficiency of the trust's valuation complaint. We review that issue 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, citing 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, ¶ 14, fn. 2, and State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295, 2007-Ohio-4163, 871 N.E.2d 1167, ¶ 8.

{¶ 9} A county board of revision's jurisdiction to hear and rule on complaints is defined by statute.

[998 N.E.2d 1135]

Elkem Metals Co., Ltd. Partnership v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 81 Ohio St.3d 683, 686, 693 N.E.2d 276 (1998), citing R.C. 5715.01 and 5715.11. R.C. 5715.01(B) requires each county to have a board of revision, “which shall hear complaints and revise assessments of real property for taxation.” R.C. 5715.11 provides that the boards of revision “shall hear complaints relating to the valuation or assessment of real property * * * and may increase or decrease any such valuation or correct any assessment complained of, or * * * order a reassessment by the original assessing officer.”

{¶ 10} In hearing and ruling on complaints, a board of revision must first examine the complaint to determine whether it meets the jurisdictional requirements set forth in R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19. Elkem at 686, 693 N.E.2d 276. The board must dismiss any complaint that does not meet those requirements. Id.

{¶ 11} R.C. 5715.19(A) “establishes the jurisdictional gateway to obtaining review by the boards of revision.” Toledo Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. at ¶ 10. Although a complaint for a decrease in valuation is most frequently filed by the owner of the subject property, R.C. 5715.19(A) 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.” R.C. 5715.13(A) directs that “the county board of revision shall not decrease any valuation unless a party affected thereby or who is authorized to file a complaint under section 5715.19 of the Revised Code makes and files with the board a written application therefor, verified by oath and signature, showing the facts upon which it is claimed such decrease should be made.”

{¶ 12} This court has generally treated full compliance with R.C. 5715.19 as an indispensible prerequisite to a board of revision's exercise of jurisdiction. Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 27, 2009-Ohio-5932, 918 N.E.2d 972, ¶ 17, citing Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision, 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 235, 313 N.E.2d 14 (1974) (“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”), and Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 336 N.E.2d 433 (1975), paragraph one of the syllabus. But see Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision, 80 Ohio St.3d 591, 593, 687 N.E.2d 723 (1998) (reversing BTA's dismissal when the appellants substantially complied with R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19); Shinkle v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Revision, 135 Ohio St.3d 227, 2013-Ohio-397, 985 N.E.2d 1243, ¶ 17 (considering whether a requirement in R.C. 5715.19 to state a dollar amount for the reduction in value was mandatory and thus jurisdictional).

{¶ 13} In Stanjim, we found that a prior version of the complaint form used here was “clearly designed to elicit information required by R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13” and that it constituted a “lawful interpretation of the minimal, data requirements” of those statutes. Stanjim at 236, 313 N.E.2d 14. There, we affirmed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction when the complainant did not complete a portion of the complaint form entitled “pertinent facts,” despite the statutory requirement that a complaint include facts supporting a decrease in valuation. R.C. 5715.13.

{¶ 14} The board of revision's jurisdiction, however, does not hinge on complete, technical compliance with the complaint form, and errors in completing the complaint form do not necessarily bar the board of revision from exercising jurisdiction. Toledo Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn., 124 Ohio St.3d 490, 2010-Ohio-253, 924 N.E.2d 345, at ¶ 15. Notably, failure to provide

[998 N.E.2d 1136]

information requested by the complaint form is not a jurisdictional defect when the requested information...