Case Title: Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

Citation: 1996-Ohio-184

Docket Number: 19942109

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Middleton, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision et al., 
1 
Appellees. 
2 
[Cite as Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), _____ Ohio St. 
3 
3d _____ ] 
4 
Taxation -- Real property valuation -- Party does not have standing to file 
5 
a complaint seeking a decrease in the value of property owned by 
6 
another -- R.C. 5715.13, construed and applied. 
7 
 
(No. 94-2109--Submitted September 14, 1995--Decided January 10, 
8 
1996.) 
9 
 
Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 93-G-1407. 
10 
 
June C. Middleton, appellant, an owner of taxable property in 
11 
Cuyahoga County, filed a complaint with the Cuyahoga County Board of 
12 
Revision, an appellee, seeking to decrease the value of property owned by 
13 
Stoney Run Ltd. Partnership for tax year 1991.  The Cuyahoga County 
14 
Auditor, an appellee, had determined the property’s true value to be 
15 
$7,309,800; in her complaint, Middleton claimed the property’s true value 
16 
to be $6,000,000.  After a hearing, the board of revision confirmed the 
17 
auditor’s valuation and Middleton appealed the board’s decision to the 
18 
Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”). 
19 
 
2
 
The BTA, citing its decision in David J. Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. 
1 
Bd. of Revision (Sept. 2, 1994), BTA No. 93-G-1192, unreported, dismissed 
2 
the appeal, finding that Middleton did not have standing to file a complaint 
3 
seeking a decrease in the value of property owned by another.  The BTA, in 
4 
effect, concluded that Middleton was not “the party affected [by the 
5 
valuation decrease] or his agent” under R.C. 5715.13. 
6 
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
7 
 
June C. Middleton, pro se. 
8 
 
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
9 
Marilyn Cassidy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
10 
 
Rosenzweig, Schulz & Gillombardo Co., L.P.A., and Bill J. Gagliano, 
11 
urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Westlake Board of Education. 
12 
 
Per Curiam.  Middleton argues that R.C. 5715.19 renders one who 
13 
files a complaint seeking a decrease in the valuation of a property owned by 
14 
another to be “a party affected” under R.C. 5715.13 and able to file a 
15 
complaint to decrease the value of property owned by the other taxpayer.  
16 
Appellees counter that Middleton has no interest in reducing the value of 
17 
 
3
the instant property, is not a party affected, and, consequently, lacks 
1 
standing to seek a reduction in the value of this property. 
2 
 
R.C. 5715.19 (A)(1) provides that “[a]ny person owning taxable real 
3 
property in the county or in a taxing district with territory in the county * * 
4 
* may file such a complaint regarding any such determination affecting any 
5 
real property in the county * * *.”  The determinations that a property owner 
6 
may complain about include property classifications, current agricultural 
7 
use valuations, recoupment charges, valuations or assessments of property 
8 
on the tax lists, and the total valuation of any parcel on the agricultural land 
9 
tax list.  R.C. 5715.19 (A)(1)(a) through (e). 
10 
 
R.C. 5715.13 prevents a board of revision from decreasing “any 
11 
valuation complained of unless the party affected thereby or his agent makes 
12 
and files with the board a written application therefor, verified by oath, 
13 
showing the facts upon which it is claimed such decrease should be made.” 
14 
 
Complainants must fully comply with R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13 
15 
before a county board of revision may act on their claims.  Stanjim Co. v. 
16 
Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St. 2d 233, 67 O.O. 2d 296, 
17 
313 N.E. 2d 14.  Since R.C. 5715.19 is a general statute providing who may 
18 
 
4
complain about various actions taken by the auditor, R.C. 5715.13, a special 
1 
statute which restricts a board of revision’s power to reduce property values, 
2 
controls the filing of complaints seeking decreases in a property’s value.  
3 
R.C. 1.51; see Leach v. Collins (1931), 123 Ohio St. 530, 533, 176 N.E. 77, 
4 
78.  This case turns on the meaning of “the party affected thereby.” 
5 
 
We hold that a party affected by a complaint to decrease the value of 
6 
property is one upon whom the decrease will produce a material influence 
7 
or effect.  Of course, a decrease in value will produce a material effect on 
8 
the property owner because it will reduce his or her taxes.  On the other 
9 
hand, the decrease in the value of the subject property will not have any 
10 
material effect on Middleton, the owner of another property.  We are unable 
11 
to see how a decrease in value of the subject property will affect her. 
12 
 
Accordingly, Middleton is not a “party affected” by the decrease in 
13 
value of the subject property, and we affirm the BTA’s decision because it 
14 
 
5
is reasonable and lawful. 
1 
Decision affirmed. 
2 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
3 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
4 
 
5