State ex rel. Corron v. Wisner

• Decision Date: 24 February 1971
• Docket Number: No. 70-369,70-369
• Citation: 267 N.E.2d 308,54 O.O.2d 281,25 Ohio St.2d 160
• Parties: , 54 O.O.2d 281 The STATE ex rel. CORRON et al., Appellants, v. WISNER et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 160

25 Ohio St.2d 160

267 N.E.2d 308, 54 O.O.2d 281

The STATE ex rel. CORRON et al., Appellants, v. WISNER et al., Appellees.

No. 70-369.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided Feb. 24, 1971.

Syllabus by the Court

1. R.C. 5715.19 provides a taxpayer a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the correction of any overvaluation, undervaluation, discriminatory valuation, or illegal valuation which appears upon the tax duplicate of a county for the current year.

2. A taxpayer who contends that the assessment of real property upon the tax duplicate for the current year is illegal because the statutory requirements for revision (R.C. 5715.16) and publication (R.C. 5715.17) have not been complied with has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of injunction pursuant to R.C. 2723.01.

3. Mandamus is not a proper remedy where a taxpayer has a plan and adequate remedy pursuant to R.C. 5715.19 or R.C. 2723.01.

Relators, appellants herein, instituted this action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Hancock County. They are electors and taxpayers of Hancock County. The respondents, appellees herein, constitute the Hancock County Board of Revision. Appellee Stout, chairman of the Board of Revision, is also county treasurer; appellee Wisner, secretary of the Board of Revision, is also county auditor; and the third member, appellee Huffman, is also chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.

Relators sought a writ of mandamus ordering the respondents to perform the 'duty of the complete revision of the representative classes of property' in Hancock County, and a temporary injunction enjoining the collection of taxes for the year 1969 (to be collected in 1970). During the year 1969, the Board of Revision heard approximately 2,600 complaints concerning valuation for property tax purposes for the year 1968 and made determinations thereof.

When the time came for the auditor to submit the abstract of real property for Hancock County for the year 1969 to the Board of Revision, no formal presentation was made by the auditor. However, minutes showing the approval of the abstract, as required by R.C. 5715.16, were prepared and signed by two members of the Board of Revision. The auditor certified that the abstract was a true and correct return of the assessments of real property, as revised by the Board of Revision, and submitted the abstract to the Board of Tax Appeals which approved the same. The auditor also prepared the required notice pursuant to R.C. 5715.17, but by error failed to publish the notice as required.

At the time of hearing before the Court of Appeals, approximately 90 per cent of the taxes for the first half of the year had been collected. The Court of Appeals denied the writ and dismissed the petition for the reason that the relators had an adequate remedy at law. (23 Ohio App.2d 1, 260 N.E.2d 608.) The cause is before this court upon appeal as a matter of right, being an action originating in the Court of Appeals.

David A. Hackenberg, Carl W. Hinton and John C. Sausser, Findlay, for appellants.

Richard J. Rinebolt, Pros. Atty., Findlay, for appellees.

WHITESIDE, Judge.

Even though the appellants have shown that the appellees did not comply in full with the applicable statutes with regard to the assessment of taxes for the year 1969 (R.C. 5715.16 and 5715.17), the initial question before this court is whether or not the appellants chose the correct remedy.

It is fundamental that a writ of mandamus will not be granted where the persons seeking the writ have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law including both legal and equitable remedies. See State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 228 N.E.2d 631, the tenth paragraph of the syllabus of which is as follows:

'The Court of Appeals is governed by the same rules that govern the Supreme Court with regard to its original jurisdiction in mandamus actions. On appeal as a matter of right from a judgment from a Court of Appeals in such an action, the Supreme Court will review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, as if the action had been filed originally in this court, to determine the following questions: (a) Is the respondent under a clear legal duty to perform an official act? (b) Is there a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law? (c) Is the action, although labeled a proceeding in mandamus, in effect an action seeking an injunction? (d)...