Case Title: James Navratil Dev. Co. v. Medina County Bd. of Revision

Citation: 2014-Ohio-1931

Docket Number: 2013-0293

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-05-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
James Navratil Dev. Co. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1931.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-1931 
JAMES NAVRATIL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. MEDINA COUNTY 
BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as James Navratil Dev. Co. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1931.] 
Taxation—Real-property valuation—Identification of legal owner of property in 
the complaint—Board of Tax Appeals’ decision reversed on the authority 
of Groveport Madison Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of 
Revision—Cause remanded for further proceedings. 
(No. 2013-0293—Submitted February 25, 2014—Decided May 13, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2010-A-3331. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} James Navratil Development Company (“JNDC”) appeals from a 
decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”).  In that decision, the BTA 
remanded this cause and ordered that the Medina County Board of Revision 
(“BOR”) dismiss JNDC’s complaint on the grounds that JNDC did not properly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
identify itself as the owner of the property on the face of the complaint.  In the 
space provided on the complaint form to identify the “Owner Of Property,” the 
owner is stated to be “James Navratil Company,” not “James Navratil 
Development Company.”  The latter is the actual name of the owner of the 
property. 
{¶ 2} Despite the incorrect name set forth on the complaint, the BOR 
through its secretary, the county auditor, see R.C. 5715.09, identified JNDC as the 
complainant when it issued its hearing notices and decision.  The BOR thereby 
effectively substituted the proper entity for the wrong or misnamed entity on the 
complaint form.  When JNDC appealed the BOR’s decision to the BTA, the 
auditor and the BOR changed their position:  They moved for dismissal of the 
complaint because the complaint had the wrong entity name on it. 
{¶ 3} As noted, the BTA granted the motion and remanded to the BOR 
with instructions that the complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  The 
BTA expressed its view that a valuation complaint “must include all information 
that goes to the core of procedural efficiency” and concluded that correct 
identification of the owner on the valuation complaint is a jurisdictional 
prerequisite to the board of revision’s jurisdiction.  BTA No. 2010-A-3331, 2013 
WL 314198, *1-2 (Jan. 15, 2013). 
{¶ 4} JNDC appealed to this court.  While the parties were filing briefs 
in this appeal, we issued our decision in Groveport Madison Local Schools Bd. of 
Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 137 Ohio St.3d 266, 2013-Ohio-4627, 998 
N.E.2d 1132.  In that case, we held that because there is no explicit statutory 
requirement for proper identification of the owner on the complaint, “it is not a 
jurisdictional requirement to correctly name the owner of the subject property in a 
valuation complaint.”  Id. at ¶ 23-24.  In light of Groveport Madison, we issued a 
show-cause order in this case on December 16, 2013, requiring appellees to show 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
cause why the BTA’s decision should not be reversed and the cause remanded on 
the authority of Groveport Madison.  No response to the order was filed. 
{¶ 5} In sum, the defect in the complaint was not jurisdictional and the 
BTA erred in holding that it was.  Moreover, the substitution of a proper party is 
typically permitted when there has been a misnomer in the pleadings and the 
substitution has caused no prejudice.  See Smith v. Brush-Moore Newspapers, 
Inc., 27 Ohio St.2d 111, 271 N.E.2d 846 (1971), paragraph one of the syllabus 
(plaintiff was “entitled to amend his petition to substitute” the proper defendant in 
spite of the statute of limitations where the proper defendant was a wholly owned 
subsidiary of the named defendant with actual notice of the action and the named 
defendant failed to timely plead its lack of responsibility); Civ.R. 25(D)(1) (if a 
public officer who is a party dies or is separated from the public office, 
substitution of the successor is automatic, and further proceedings “shall be in the 
name of the substituted party, but any misnomer not affecting the substantial 
rights of the parties shall be disregarded”).  The county auditor and the BOR have 
shown no prejudice to themselves or any other person or entity. 
{¶ 6} Therefore, on the authority of Groveport Madison we reverse the 
BTA’s decision and remand this cause to the BTA for further proceedings. 
Decision reversed 
and cause remanded. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Sleggs, Danzinger & Gill Co., L.P.A., and Todd W. Sleggs, for appellant. 
 
Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nathan E. 
Carnes, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Medina County Auditor and 
Medina County Board of Revision. 
_________________________