Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision
| Decision Date | 10 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2109,94-2109 |
| Parties | MIDDLETON, Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
June C. Middleton, appellant, an owner of taxable property in Cuyahoga County, filed a complaint with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, an appellee, seeking to decrease the value of property owned by Stoney Run Ltd. Partnership for tax year 1991. The Cuyahoga County Auditor, an appellee, had determined the property's true value to be $7,309,800; in her complaint, Middleton claimed the property's true value to be $6,000,000. After a hearing, the board of revision confirmed the auditor's valuation and Middleton appealed the board's decision to the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA").
The BTA, citing its decision in David J. Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Sept. 2, 1994), BTA No. 93-G-1192, unreported, dismissed the appeal, finding that Middleton did not have standing to file a complaint seeking a decrease in the value of property owned by another. The BTA, in effect concluded that Middleton was not "the party affected [by the valuation decrease] or his agent" under R.C. 5715.13.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
June C. Middleton, pro se.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Marilyn Cassidy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
Rosenzweig, Schulz & Gillombardo Co., L.P.A., and Bill J. Gagliano, Cleveland, urging affirmance, for amicus curiae, Westlake Board of Education.
Middleton argues that R.C. 5715.19 renders one who files a complaint seeking a decrease in the valuation of a property owned by another to be "a party affected" under R.C. 5715.13 and able to file a complaint to decrease the value of property owned by the other taxpayer. Appellees counter that Middleton has no interest in reducing the value of the instant property, is not a party affected, and, consequently, lacks standing to seek a reduction in the value of this property.
R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) provides that "[a]ny person owning taxable real property in the county or in a taxing district with territory in the county * * * may file such a complaint regarding any such determination affecting any real property in the county * * *." The determinations that a property owner may complain about include property classifications, current agricultural use valuations, recoupment charges, valuations or assessments of property on the tax lists, and the total valuation of any parcel on the agricultural land tax list. R.C. 5715.19(A)(1)(a) through (e).
R.C. 5715.13 prevents a board of revision from decreasing "any valuation complained of unless the party affected thereby or his agent makes and files with the board a written application therefor, verified by oath, showing the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toledo Pub. Sch. Bd. Of Educ. v. Lucas County Bd. Of Revision
...valuation” unless a party who is authorized by R.C. 5715.19(A) to do so files the complaint. See Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 226, 227-228, 658 N.E.2d 267; Buckeye Foods v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 459, 461, 678 N.E.2d Soc. Natl......
-
Buckeye Foods v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision
...from decreasing any valuation complained of unless filed by "the party affected thereby or his agent." Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 226, 658 N.E.2d 267. Complaints filed under these statutes are jurisdictional. In Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revis......
-
Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Lake County Bd. of Revision
... ... The BTA based its decision against CEI on Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 236, 67 O.O.2d 296, 298, 313 N.E.2d 14, 16, wherein ... See, also, Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 73 O.O.2d 83, 336 N.E.2d 433. More recently, in ... be deemed complete, and do not constitute "full compliance" with Form 1, as required by Middleton and Stanjim ... Complainants acknowledge that they had notice of the challenged ... ...
-
Univ. Hospitals Health Sys., Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 490, 2010-Ohio-253, 924 N.E.2d 345, ¶ 10, quoting Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 74 Ohio St.3d 226, 227-228, 658 N.E.2d 267 (1996). "Full compliance with R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13 is necessary before a county board of revision is emp......