State, ex rel. Rolling Hills Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., v. Brown, 91-1339

Citation63 Ohio St.3d 520,589 N.E.2d 1265
Decision Date29 April 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-1339,91-1339
Parties, 73 Ed. Law Rep. 763 The STATE, ex rel. ROLLING HILLS LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant, v. BROWN, Cty. Auditor, et al., Appellees.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Rolling Hills Local School District Board of Education, appellant, asserts that in 1927 the Guernsey County Auditor erroneously recorded parcels to be located in the Cambridge City School District when the parcels, according to Rolling Hills, were actually located in the Cambridge Township School District. The Cambridge Township School District was ultimately consolidated into the Rolling Hills Local School District. The parcels now contain a shopping plaza.

When Rolling Hills could not persuade former Guernsey County Auditor, Leonard Patterson, to change the tax list, it filed a mandamus action in the Court of Appeals for Guernsey County. In the complaint, Rolling Hills sought to order the county auditor, now Anthony C. Brown, appellee, to list the disputed parcels on the tax list to be located in the Rolling Hills Local School District and to collect taxes assessed against these parcels on behalf of the Rolling Hills Local School District. The Cambridge City School District Board of Education, appellee, intervened. The court of appeals denied the writ, ruling that Rolling Hills had an adequate remedy at law via an appeal under R.C. Chapter 2506.

This cause is before the court upon an appeal as of right.

Warhola, Heine & Ferguson, Andrew J. Warhola, Jr., Cambridge, Warhola, O'Toole, Loughman, Alderman & Stumphauzer, and Kenneth S. Stumphauzer, Lorain, for appellant.

C. Keith Plummer, Pros. Atty., for appellee Guernsey County Auditor.

Teaford, Rich, Coffman & Wheeler and Jeffrey A. Rich, Columbus, for appellee Cambridge City School Dist. Bd. of Educ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellees argue that Rolling Hills could file a complaint under R.C. 5715.19 to challenge the assessment of these parcels and, therefore, have an adequate remedy at law. Rolling Hills replies that this statute is not as broad as appellees maintain. It contends that a board of education may contest only the current value of the property under the statute. We agree with appellees.

R.C. 5713.01 authorizes the county auditor to assess all real estate in his county. Under the statute, the auditor views and appraises each lot or parcel and places the correct value of each property on his tax list and on the county treasurer's duplicate.

The auditor prepares the tax list pursuant to R.C. 319.28. On the tax list, he records, inter alia, all the parcels in the county, the names of their owners, and the taxing district in which each parcel is located. According to R.C. 319.30, the auditor, after receiving tax rates from the various taxing authorities, including school boards, determines the taxes to be levied on each parcel and enters this amount on the tax list. On October 1, he delivers one copy, the duplicate, to the treasurer; the treasurer collects taxes per the duplicate. R.C. 319.28 and 323.13. We conclude, after reading these statutes, that assessing real property for taxation includes assigning parcels to taxing districts and recording them accordingly on the tax...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 5 Enero 2000
    ...5715.20 requires notice to "the person in whose name the property is listed." In State ex rel. Rolling Hills Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Brown (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 520, 521, 589 N.E.2d 1265, 1266, we stated, "The auditor prepares the tax list pursuant to R.C. 319.28. On the tax list,......
  • State ex rel. Lorain v. Stewart
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 14 Agosto 2008
    ...county board of revision do not address CRA exemptions and are thus distinguishable. See State ex rel. Rolling Hills Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Brown (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 520, 589 N.E.2d 1265 (claim that property was erroneously recorded in improper taxing district could be reviewed......
  • Hess Ohio Devs., LLC v. Belmont Cnty. Bd. of Revision
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 28 Septiembre 2020
    ...valuation or assessment of the property." (BTA Dec., p. 3.) {¶41} The BTA cites State ex rel. Rolling Hills Local School Dist. Bd. Of Ed. v. Brown Cty. Auditor, 63 Ohio St.3d 520, 589 N.E.2d 1265 (1992), in which the Ohio Supreme Court held that a school board seeking to challenge the listi......
  • N. Olmsted City v. Bd. of Edn.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 12 Abril 2006
    ...and levying of taxes, the court in Zupancic discussed this court's decision in State ex rel. Rolling Hills Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Brown (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 520, 521, 589 N.E.2d 1265, which was decided after Rocky River, and which clarified that assessing property for taxation "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT