Kosuke v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 21AP-211
| Decision Date | 16 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21AP-229,21AP-218,21AP-239,21AP-240,21AP-244,21AP-238,21AP-215,21AP-219,21AP-246,21AP-241,21AP-214,21AP-230,21AP-234 21AP-235,21AP-221,21AP-245,21AP-242,21AP-224,21AP-237,21AP-226,21AP-213,21AP-227,21AP-217,21AP-220,21AP-225,21AP-247,21AP-212,21AP-232,21AP-211,21AP-236,21AP-231,21AP-233,21AP-228,21AP-216 |
| Parties | Takahashi Kosuke, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision, et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Dublin City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Takako Fujiki, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Dublin City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Takako Fujiki, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Dublin City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Kimizuka Koichiro, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Westerville City Schools District, Appellee-Appellant. Shinichi Yamamoto, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees , Board of Education of the Westerville City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Shinichi Uemura, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Worthington City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Sekiko Kiyota, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Worthington City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Toshiyasu Nishii, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Worthington City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Ayako Shimane, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Worthington City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Horoshi Nagano, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Worthington School District, Appellee-Appellant. Nagatani Hirokazu, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Westerville School District, Appellee-Appellant. Nagae Koji, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Westerville City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Tetsuo Lguchi, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Westerville City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Makoto Fujiki, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Worthington City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Yasutaka Matsuzaki, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Dublin City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Yasutaka Matsuzaki, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Dublin City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Yu Christopher Ishihara, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Dublin City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Toshiki Sato, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Dublin City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Hirofumi Kasuga, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Worthington City School District, Appellee-Appellant. Masahiro Sumita, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellees, Board of Education of the Worthington City School District, Appellee-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
APPEALS from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA Nos 2020-2309, 2020-2350 2020-2312, 2020-2351, 2020-2326 2020-2359, 2020-2316, 2020-2318, 2020-2356, 2020-2322 2020-2357, 2020-2355, 2020-2320, 2020-2371, 2020-2333, 2020-2368, 2020-2337, 2020-2362, 2020-2338 & 2020-2363, 2020-2370, 2020-2358, 2020-2347, 2020-2354, 2020-2372, 2020-2349, 2020-2336, 2020-2352, 2020-2348, 2020-2341, 2020-2369, 2020-2343, 2020-2344, 2020-2366)
On brief: Rich & Gillis Law Group, Mark H. Gillis, and Richelle L. Thoburn Ford, for appellants Boards of Education of the Dublin, Worthington, and Westerville City School Districts.
Argued: Richelle L. Thoburn Ford.
DECISION
6
{¶ 1} Invoking the rule of Megaland GP, L.L.C. v Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 145 Ohio St.3d 84, 2015-Ohio-4918, appellant school boards bring these interlocutory appeals from denials by the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") of school board motions to dismiss appeals to the BTA of real property valuation increase decisions by the Franklin County Board of Revision. Because the appeals here relate to BTA jurisdiction over cases on its small claims docket, we understand the binding precedent of Megaland to instruct that we consider them. See id. at ¶ 16-19.
{¶ 2} The school boards present five assignments of error that they properly group under two main headings:
Appellants' Brief at i, iv. The school boards ask us to reverse the decisions of the BTA on their motions to dismiss, or "[i]n the alternative * * * [to] remand these matters to the BTA with instructions to rule" explicitly on the identified issues. No appellee property owner has filed a responsive brief.
{¶ 3} The school boards did argue to the BTA that "[t]here is no evidence in the record to prove that the Notices of Appeal were timely filed with the BOR pursuant to R.C. 5717.01."
7
See, e.g., Appellee BOE's Motion to Dismiss Appeals in Kosuke v. Franklin Cty. BOR, et al, BTA No. 2020-2309, 2350 at 6 (emphasis omitted). Under R.C. 5717.01, a taxpayer authorized by Section 5715.19 may appeal a decision of a county board of revision to the BTA. "Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal * * * with the board of tax appeals and with the county board of revision." R.C. 5717.01. The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained that "it is well established that the BTA is a creature of statute and as such has only the jurisdiction, power, and duties expressly provided by the General Assembly." Ross v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 155 Ohio St.3d 373, 2018-Ohio-4746, ¶ 9. "When, as here, 'a statute confers the right of appeal, adherence to the conditions thereby imposed is essential to the enjoyment of the right of appeal conferred.'" Id. at ¶ 10 (citation omitted). Supreme Court precedent Id. at ¶ 11 (citations omitted).
{¶ 4} In denying the motions to dismiss, the BTA did not advert to or explicitly rule on the question of whether the statutory dual filing requirement had been satisfied. See, e.g., BTA Order denying motion to dismiss in Kosuke, supra. Exploration of the record on such matters is best left in the first instance to the BTA, whose jurisdiction is at issue. We therefore sustain the school boards' assignments of error 2, 3, 4, and 5 to that extent and we remand these cases to the BTA so that it may determine whether the dual filing requirement of R.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial