Stanjim Co. v. Board of Revision of Mahoning County, 73-886
| Decision Date | 12 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-886,73-886 |
| Citation | 67 O.O.2d 296,38 Ohio St.2d 233,313 N.E.2d 14 |
| Parties | , 67 O.O.2d 296 The STANJIM CO. et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF REVISION OF MAHONING COUNTY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
In the early part of 1972, appellants filed with the Auditor of Mahoning County 38 complaints as to the assessments of their real property for the tax year 1971. Those complaints were on Board of Revision Form No. 1 (hereinafter BTA Form 1), as prescribed by the Board of Tax Appeals, but a large portion of the form, entitled PERTINENT FACTS, was left incomplete. In its place, appellants had typewritten: 'All other pertinent data substantiating this complaint of over valuation will be presented at requested hearing.'
The auditor, by letter dated April 5, 1972, rejected appellants' complaints for failing to comply with R.C. 5715.13. Appellants then filed a mandamus action, in the Court of Common Pleas, to compel the auditor to present their complaints to the board of revision. Upon appeal from a dismissal of their petition for mandamus, appellants prevailed, and the Court of Appeals held 'that under R.C. 5715.19 the county auditor has a mandatory duty to present all complaints as to the valuation or assessment of real property to the county board of revision.' State ex rel. Wedgewood 129 Corp. v. Olenick (1973), 36 Ohio App.2d 111, 113, 303 N.E.2d 101, 103. The court noted that 'the question of whether these complaints were defective because they were incomplete was not properly before the county auditor when he refused to present them to the board of revision, and they are not an issue in this case.'
No appeal was taken from that decision, and, in accordance therewith, the auditor presented appellants' complaints to the board of revision. Meanwhile, each of the appellants had filed, with the board of revision, an additional document entitled 'Application for Decrease in Valuation,' which purported to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 5715.13.
By letter dated April 18, 1973, the board of revision dismissed, sua sponte, all of appellants' complaints on the grounds that they 'did not comply with requirements of the Board of Tax Appeals for filing * * *, and the BTA Forms 1 were not sufficiently completed.' This decision was appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals which, on October 5, 1973, affirmed the lawfulness of the board of revision's action.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Forrester & Kovanda and Ralph D. Kovanda, Cleveland, for appellants.
Vincent E. Gilmartin, Pros. Atty., and Dennis Haines, Youngstown, for appellees.
This appeal presents for our determination the question left unanswered by the Court of Appeals in State ex rel. Wedgewood 129 Corp. v. Olenick, supra. Appellants claim that failure to fully complete BTA Form 1 cannot be the basis for dismissal of their real property assessment complaints, when there are 'home-drawn' documents before the county board of revision sufficient to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13. Appellees reply, in sum, that BTA Form 1 has been drawn by the Board of Tax Appeals to conform to the requirements of R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13; that compliance with those statutes is a jurisdictional prerequisite to obtaining relief from a county board of revision; that failure to fully complete BTA Form 1 subjects an applicant's complaint to summary dismissal; and that BTA Form 1 includes the admonition that 'if complainant does not comply with these sections, the board is without jurisdiction to consider the complaint.'
There can be no dispute over the authority of the Board of Tax Appeals to prescribe and furnish, pursuant to R.C. 5715.29 and 5715.30, blank forms for complaints as to the assessment of real property. Indeed, R.C. 5715.30 places a mandatory duty upon the board to provide such forms, and R.C. 5715.29 requires the board to cause 'the forms prescribed by it to be observed and used.'
Two more basic issues, however, remain to be considered: (1) Is full compliance with R.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Groveport Madison Local Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...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 empo......
-
Cardinal Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision
...may consider a claim to decrease valuation only where the claimant has complied with R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19. (Stanjim Co. v. Bd. of Revision, 38 Ohio St.2d 233.) 2. The Board of Tax Appeals is not required to adopt the valuation fixed by any expert or witness. (Hibschman v. Bd. of Tax App......
-
Worth. City Sch. Bd. of Edn. v. Frank. Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...an indispensable prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by a board of revision. See Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 235, 67 O.O.2d 296, 313 N.E.2d 14; Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 73 O.O......
-
Shinkle v. Ashtabula Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...that the notice specify the errors complained of are jurisdictional prerequisites); compare Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision, 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 313 N.E.2d 14 (1974) (dismissal required when complainant failed to set forth reasons for requested reduction in value) with Nucorp, I......