Victoria Plaza Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, No. 98-1446.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: Per Curiam.
• Citation: 712 NE 2d 751,86 Ohio St.3d 181
• Parties: VICTORIA PLAZA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION; NORTH OLMSTED BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT.
• Docket Number: No. 98-1446.
• Decision Date: 28 July 1999

86 Ohio St.3d 181
712 NE 2d 751

VICTORIA PLAZA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ET AL., APPELLEES,
v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION; NORTH OLMSTED BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT

No. 98-1446.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 17, 1999.

Decided July 28, 1999.

86 Ohio St.3d 182

Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A., and Annrita S. Johnson, for appellees

Kolick & Kondzer, Thomas A. Kondzer and Kimberly A. Aldrich, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

The BOE primarily argues that Company, despite having an equitable interest in the property, does not have standing to file a valuation complaint as an owner, contending that the owner must hold legal title to the property. Company responds that, first, it had sufficient ownership interest, an equitable interest, to have standing to file the complaint. Second, it maintains that the complaint satisfies the standing requirement because the complaint listed Company and Partnership as the owner of the property, each of which, at some point, owned the property.

We conclude that the holder of an equitable interest in real property does not have standing to file a valuation complaint. We further conclude that Partnership held legal title to the property when Company and Partnership filed their joint complaint and that Partnership had standing to proceed on the joint complaint.

R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) provides for the filing of valuation complaints:

"Any person owning taxable real property in the county * * * may file [a valuation] complaint regarding any such determination affecting any real property in the county * * *."

In Soc. Natl. Bank v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 692 N.E.2d 148, 150, we held that a complainant under the statute "must own

86 Ohio St.3d 183

taxable real property in the county at the time the complaint is filed." In Buckeye Foods v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 459, 461, 678 N.E.2d 917, 919, we ruled that standing to file valuation complaints is jurisdictional. Standing is jurisdictional in administrative appeals "where parties must meet strict standing requirements in order to satisfy the threshold requirement for the administrative tribunal to obtain jurisdiction." State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 77, 701 N.E.2d 1002, 1008, fn. 4. Thus, to have standing, one filing a valuation complaint as the owner of real property must own real property in the county when such person files the complaint to invoke the jurisdiction of the...