Nucorp, Inc. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Revision, 80-370
| Decision Date | 19 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-370,80-370 |
| Citation | 18 O.O.3d 191,412 N.E.2d 947,64 Ohio St.2d 20 |
| Parties | , 18 O.O.3d 191 NUCORP, INC. et al., Appellees, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Arter & Hadden, Jacob I. Rosenbaum and Curtiss L. Isler, for appellee Nucorp, Inc.
Lee C. Falke, Pros. Atty., and Terence L. Fague, for appellants.
The issue presented is whether failure to comply with the 45-day requirement contained on DTE Form 1 for the filing of supplemental information is a jurisdictional defect.
While this court has never spoken directly to this issue, it has held that BTA Form 1, the predecessor to DTE Form 1, " * * * represents a lawful interpretation of the minimal, data requirements of R. C. 5715.19 and 5715.13," Stanjim Co. v. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 236, 313 N.E.2d 14. Such form had to be fully completed by any taxpayer who desired to have the assessed value of property reduced, and failure to do so was jurisdictional. Stanjim, supra; Griffith v. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 225, 339 N.E.2d 817.
Based on these two cases, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, in an unreported decision, has held that failure to file the supplemental information within the 45-day period is a proper ground for dismissal of a complaint. Levine v. Cuyahoga Co. Bd. of Revision, No. 35292 (Nov. 18, 1976).
The Court of Appeals for Franklin County views the supplemental information as a filing made subsequent to the filing of the complaint, and, therefore, non-jurisdictional in nature. That court stated in an unreported decision, Griswold Realty, Inc., v. Bd. of Revision of Franklin County, No. 78 AP-452 (Feb. 22, 1979), as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Groveport Madison Local Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...Inc. XLII v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 119 Ohio St.3d 233, 2008-Ohio-3192, 893 N.E.2d 457;Nucorp, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 64 Ohio St.2d 20, 21, 412 N.E.2d 947 (1980). “While this court has never encouraged or condoned disregard of procedural schemes logically attendant......
-
Smith v. May
...Dir., Dept. of Job & Family Servs. , 148 Ohio St.3d 1, 2016-Ohio-2907, 68 N.E.3d 729, ¶ 14, 16 ; Nucorp, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision , 64 Ohio St.2d 20, 22, 412 N.E.2d 947 (1980).2. The erosion of Gaskins I{¶ 25} When Gaskins's case returned to this court after our remand, we ab......
-
Shinkle v. Ashtabula Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...required when complainant failed to set forth reasons for requested reduction in value) with Nucorp, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 64 Ohio St.2d 20, 412 N.E.2d 947 (1980) (complainant's failure to deliver certain required additional information 45 days after filing the complaint ......
-
Notice Violation v. LMD Integrated Logistic Servs., Inc. (In re LMD Integrated Logistic Servs., Inc.)
...Cty. Bd. of Revision , 137 Ohio St.3d 266, 2013-Ohio-4627, 998 N.E.2d 1132, ¶ 14, quoting Nucorp, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision , 64 Ohio St.2d 20, 22, 412 N.E.2d 947 (1980).{¶ 18} We have long held that the purpose of a notice of appeal is to inform the opposing party when an app......