Case Title: Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

Citation: 2006-Ohio-4091

Docket Number: 20051639

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 110 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2006-Ohio-
4091.] 
 
 
OLYMPIC STEEL, INC., APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF 
REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 
110 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2006-Ohio-4091.] 
Appeal from Board of Tax Appeals — Tax Commissioner not named as appellee 
and not served with notice of appeal — Appeal dismissed. 
(No. 2005-1639 — Submitted June 6, 2006 — Decided August 16, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2004-A-738, 2004-A-739,  
2004-A-742, 2004-A-743, 2004-A-747, and 2004-A-748. 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} This cause is before the court on an appeal from the Board of Tax 
Appeals ("BTA"). 
{¶ 2} In any appeal from a decision of a county board of revision, R.C. 
5717.03(B) requires the BTA to send a copy of its decision by certified mail to the 
Tax Commissioner, and R.C. 5717.04 requires that an appellant who wishes to 
challenge the BTA's decision must serve the Tax Commissioner, who by statute 
must be made an appellee, with a copy of the notice of appeal by certified mail.  
In construing the substantially similar language of R.C. 5717.05, we held that the 
requirement of joinder and service is "mandatory and jurisdictional."  Huber Hts. 
Circuit Courts, Ltd. v. Carne (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 306, 308, 658 N.E.2d 744.  
Likewise, appellant’s failure in this case to comply with its statutory obligation to 
serve the notice of appeal on the Tax Commissioner in the prescribed manner 
deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  See Am. Restaurant & 
Lunch Co. v. Glander (1946), 147 Ohio St. 147, 34 O.O. 8, 70 N.E.2d 93, 
paragraph one of the syllabus (“Where a statute confers the right of appeal, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
adherence to the conditions thereby imposed is essential to the enjoyment of the 
right conferred”). 
{¶ 3} Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶4} 
For the reasons expressed in its opinion, I would affirm the 
decision of the Board of Tax Appeals. 
{¶5} 
I would also address the issue of service.  S.Ct.Prac.R. II(3)(A)(1) 
requires conformance with R.C. 5717.04, which requires parties that appeal a 
decision of the Board of Tax Appeals to this court to serve a notice of appeal on 
the Tax Commissioner.  I believe dual filing requirements such as this should not 
be part of our rules.  They serve no purpose except to deny parties a chance to be 
heard on the merits.  I dissent. 
__________________ 
 
Karen H. Bauernschmidt Co., L.P.A., Karen H. Bauernschmidt, and Susan 
K. French-Scaggs, for appellant. 
 
Kadish, Hinkel & Weibel, Kevin M. Hinkel, and Jeffrey Platko, for 
appellee, Board of Education of the Orange City School District. 
______________________