State ex rel. Wedgewood 129 Corp. v. Olenick

• Decision Date: 30 March 1973
• Citation: 303 N.E.2d 101,36 Ohio App.2d 111
• Parties: , 65 O.O.2d 133 STATE ex rel. WEDGEWOOD 129 CORP. et al., Appellants, v. OLENICK et al., Appellees. STATE ex rel. The KLW REALTY CO. et al., Appellants, v. OLENICK et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 111

36 Ohio App.2d 111

303 N.E.2d 101, 65 O.O.2d 133

STATE ex rel. WEDGEWOOD 129 CORP. et al., Appellants, v. OLENICK et al., Appellees.

STATE ex rel. The KLW REALTY CO. et al., Appellants, v. OLENICK et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County.

March 30, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The action by the county auditor of refusing to submit the complaint of a taxpayer as to the assessment of real property to the county board of revision is a ministerial act that is not quasi-judicial and is not appealable under R.C. 2506.01.

2. 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.

Forrester & Kovanda and Ralph D. Kovanda, Cleveland, for appellants.

Vincent E. Gilmartin, Pros. Atty., and Dennis Haines, Youngstown, for appellees.

LYNCH, Presiding Judge.

These two cases were consolidated because they involve similar questions. Both appeals involve mandamus cases which have been dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County.

Plaintiffs are 38 real property owners represented by Grogan Management, Inc., as agent, who filed complaints with the Mahoning County board of revision in February and March, 1972 for the year 1971. By letter dated April 5, 1972, defendant, Stephen R. Olenick as Mahoning County auditor wrote Grogan Management, Inc., that the complaints filed by it were being rejected because they did not comply with R.C. 5715.13 in that they did not 'set forth and serve to the facts upon which it is claimed such decreases should be made,' and that such complaints would not be submitted to the board of revision for hearing.

Each of the complaints are filed on board of revision form No. 1 as prescribed by the department of taxation, board of tax appeals of Ohio, and contained the name of the complainant, the permanent parcel number of the property, the location of the property, the taxing district, the current assessed value, the taxable value claimed and the decrease asked. The requested information under the heading 'pertinent facts' was not answered, but there was a statement that 'all other pertinent data substantiating this complaint of overvaluation will be presented at requested hearing.'

Plaintiffs' first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in ruling that they had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law in Title 57 as well as R.C. Chapter 2506.

Chapter 5717 offers an alternate appeal from a decision of a county board of revision either to the board of tax appeals (R.C. 5717.01) or to the court of common pleas (R.C. 5717.05). Neither of these statutes are applicable to the instant case, because the action at issue was taken by the county auditor rather than the county board of revision.

M. J. Kelley Co. v. Cleveland, 32 Ohio St.2d 150, 290 N.E.2d 562, held as follows:

'The review of proceedings of administrative officers and agencies, authorized by Section 4(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, contemplates quasi-judicial proceedings only, and administrative actions of administrative officers...