Case Title: AT&T Commc'ns of Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch

Citation: 2012-Ohio-1975

Docket Number: 2011-0337

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-05-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1975.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-1975 
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF OHIO, INC., APPELLEE, v. LYNCH, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1975.] 
Administrative appeals pursuant to R.C. 2506.01—Notice required—Each party 
seeking to reverse or modify the underlying administrative decision must 
perfect a separate appeal in order to vest the common pleas court with 
jurisdiction to review each party’s respective assignments of error—
Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2011-0337—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided May 8, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 94320,  
2011-Ohio-302. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
In an administrative appeal to a court of common pleas pursuant to R.C. 2506.01, 
each party seeking to reverse or modify the underlying administrative 
decision must perfect a separate appeal in order to vest the common pleas 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
court with jurisdiction to review each party’s respective assignments of 
error. 
__________________ 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
I. Introduction 
{¶ 1} The issue before the court is whether a single notice of appeal of 
an administrative decision under R.C. 2506.01 vests the court of common pleas 
with jurisdiction to review an appeal filed by a party who did not file a separate 
appeal.  We answer that question in the negative.  We hold that each party seeking 
to reverse or modify the underlying administrative decision must perfect a 
separate appeal.  Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
II. Facts 
{¶ 2} Appellee, AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc., applied to the city 
of Cleveland for an income-tax refund for 1999 through 2002.  Appellant, Nassim 
Lynch, the city’s income-tax administrator, dismissed AT&T’s application for the 
refund for 1999, finding that the statute of limitations on the request for the refund 
had expired.  The administrator further determined that any refund that AT&T 
was claiming for tax years 2000 through 2002 was offset in part by its other tax 
obligations.  Thus, the administrator denied AT&T’s appeal in all respects. 
{¶ 3} AT&T appealed to the Cleveland Board of Income Tax Review.  
The board affirmed the dismissal of the taxpayer’s application for a refund for 
1999, agreeing that the statute of limitations had expired.  However, the board 
determined that the administrator had erred in denying part of the taxpayer’s 
refund for the tax years 2000 through 2002 and decided that AT&T should 
receive the entire refund requested for those years. 
{¶ 4} AT&T appealed the board’s decision to the Cuyahoga County 
Court of Common Pleas, asserting that the board had erred in concluding that the 
statute of limitations barred AT&T’s refund claim for 1999.  The administrator 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
did not file a notice of appeal.  He did, however, file a brief asserting two 
assignments of error regarding the board’s decision to order a refund for 2000, 
2001, and 2002. 
{¶ 5} AT&T filed a motion to strike the administrator’s assignments of 
error, arguing that because the administrator did not file a notice of appeal or 
cross-appeal, the court of common pleas lacked jurisdiction to consider his 
arguments.  Asserting jurisdiction over AT&T’s one assignment of error and the 
administrator’s two assignments of error, the court of common pleas upheld the 
administrator’s position on all three assignments.  AT&T Communications of 
Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch, C.P. No. CV-06-608252 (Nov. 4, 2009). 
{¶ 6} On appeal to the court of appeals, among other assignments of 
error, AT&T asserted that the court of common pleas lacked jurisdiction to 
consider the administrator’s assignments of error because the administrator did 
not file a notice of appeal.  The court of appeals agreed and reversed the common 
pleas court’s judgment in favor of the administrator regarding AT&T’s refund for 
2000 through 2002.  AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch, 8th Dist. No. 
94320, 2011-Ohio-302, ¶ 33.  The court of appeals otherwise affirmed the 
judgment of the court of common pleas.  Id. at ¶ 38. 
{¶ 7} The administrator appealed, and AT&T cross-appealed.  We 
accepted the administrator’s discretionary appeal for review, but we denied 
AT&T’s cross-appeal.  AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 1556, 2011-Ohio-2905, 949 N.E.2d 43. 
III. Analysis 
{¶ 8} We begin by examining the authority of the court of common pleas 
to review certain administrative decisions.  “The courts of common pleas * * * 
shall have * * * such powers of review of proceedings of administrative officers 
and agencies as may be provided by law.”  Ohio Constitution, Article VI, Section 
4(B).  Pursuant to this authority, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2506.01, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
which permits parties to appeal the final decisions of political subdivisions that 
result from a quasi-judicial proceeding, in which notice, a hearing, and the 
opportunity for the introduction of evidence have been given.  See State ex rel. 
Painesville v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 93 Ohio St.3d 566, 571, 757 N.E.2d 347 
(2001).1   
{¶ 9} R.C. 2506.01 appeals proceed in accordance with the provisions of 
R.C. Chapter 2505, subject to some exceptions provided in R.C. Chapter 2506.  In 
re Incorporation of Carlisle Ridge Village, 15 Ohio St.2d 177, 180-182, 239 
N.E.2d 26 (1968).  An administrative decision of a taxing body is first appealed to 
the court of common pleas.  R.C. 2506.01.  That court’s decision may then be 
appealed to the court of appeals.  R.C. 2506.04.  The appeal to the court of 
common pleas concerns us here. 
{¶ 10} The administrator asserts the following proposition of law: “In a 
Chapter 2506 administrative appeal, the filing of a single notice of appeal vests 
jurisdiction in the common pleas court over the final decision of the 
administrative body and all issues therein without the necessity of each party 
filing a separate notice of appeal.”  Here, the administrator argues that an 
appellant’s notice of appeal vests the court of common pleas with jurisdiction to 
consider any assignment of error that seeks to reverse a portion of the board’s 
decision.  We have never ruled on this exact issue. 
{¶ 11} Citing R.C. 2506.03, the administrator asserts that the appeal of an 
administrative decision to a common pleas court is more akin to a trial, where 
“the entire matter is tried anew,” than to an appeal (“The hearing of an 
[administrative] appeal shall proceed as in the trial of a civil action”).  This 
                                                          
 
1 The instant case involves an appeal under R.C. 2506.01. However, the General Assembly has 
also provided for the appeal of administrative decisions in R.C. 119.12. “R.C. 119.12 concerns 
appeals from state agencies, while R.C. 2505.04, as applied through R.C. 2506.01, concerns 
appeals from agencies of political subdivisions.”  (Emphasis added.)  Hanson v. Shaker Hts.,152 
Ohio App.3d 1, 2003-Ohio-749, 786 N.E.2d 487, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.). 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
language, and other provisions that highlight differences between administrative 
appeals and appeals from court judgments, he claims, indicate that the appeal of 
an administrative decision to a court of common pleas really proceeds as a retrial 
of the administrative decision below; therefore, one notice of appeal under R.C. 
2506.01 authorizes a court of common pleas to consider all issues that arise from 
the underlying administrative decision. 
A.  Courts of Common Pleas  Exercise Appellate 
Jurisdiction under R.C. 2506.01 
{¶ 12} We recognize that under R.C. 2506.03, authorizing the courts of 
common pleas to hold the hearing on appeal “as in the trial of a civil action,” the 
court may admit and consider new evidence, and the court must weigh evidence 
on the whole record.  Cincinnati Bell, Inc. v. Glendale, 42 Ohio St.2d 368, 370, 
328 N.E.2d 808 (1975), quoting R.C. 2506.03. 
{¶ 13} However, while an appeal under R.C. 2506.01 “resembles a De 
novo proceeding,” it “is not De novo.”  Dudukovich v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 
58 Ohio St.2d 202, 206-207, 389 N.E.2d 1113 (1979).  There are limits to a court 
of common pleas review of the administrative body’s decision.  For example, in 
weighing evidence, the court may not “blatantly substitute its judgment for that of 
the agency, especially in areas of administrative expertise.”  Id. at 207.  Further, 
new evidence is admitted in a Chapter 2506 appeal only under certain 
circumstances.  We have noted that an R.C. 2506.01 appeal “makes liberal 
provision for the introduction of new or additional evidence.”  Id. at 206-207.  
Typically, however, a court of common pleas, in reviewing an administrative 
decision, is limited to the “transcript as filed,” according to R.C. 2506.03, with 
limited exceptions involving the integrity of the evidence in the underlying 
proceeding.  See Court Street Dev. v. Stow City Council, 9th Dist. No. 19648, 
2000 WL 1226604, *4 (Aug. 30, 2000).  Thus, while a court of common pleas in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
an R.C. 2506.01 appeal may consider evidence outside the administrative record, 
that authority is limited. 
{¶ 14} In reviewing the administrative body’s decision, a court of 
common pleas is authorized to determine whether the agency’s decision is 
“unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by 
the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence.”  R.C. 
2506.04.  See also Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 
142, 147, 735 N.E.2d 433 (2000), citing Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 
81 Ohio St.3d 608, 612, 693 N.E.2d 219 (1998), citing Dudukovich, 58 Ohio 
St.2d at 206-207, 389 N.E.2d 1113.  The court will then “affirm, reverse, vacate, 
or modify the order * * *, or remand” the underlying administrative decision 
under that standard of review specified in the statute.  R.C. 2506.04.  These 
standards that a court of common pleas must employ and the dispositions that it 
must reach are more limited than relief that could be awarded pursuant to a trial, 
and therefore, the administrative appeal is more akin to an appeal than a trial. 
{¶ 15} Therefore, although an R.C. Chapter 2506 appeal proceeds 
differently from an appeal of a trial court judgment, a court of common pleas 
nevertheless “performs an appellate function.”  Dvorak v. Athens Mun. Civ. Serv. 
Comm., 46 Ohio St.2d 99, 103, 346 N.E.2d 157 (1976).  Accordingly, we find no 
merit in the administrator’s argument that the distinctions in an R.C. 2506.01 
appeal, as compared to the appeal of the judgment of a court, indicate that a single 
notice of appeal under R.C. 2506.01 authorizes a court of common pleas to 
consider an appeal by a party that has not filed a separate notice of appeal.   
B.  Each Party Seeking to Reverse an Administrative 
Decision Must Perfect an Appeal 
{¶ 16} Even though we have determined that in the appeal of an 
administrative decision, a court of common pleas operates more like a court of 
appeals than a trial court, our analysis is not yet complete.  We now look to the 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
procedure for filing an administrative appeal in a court of common pleas pursuant 
to R.C. 2505.04 to determine whether the filing of a single notice of appeal vests 
the court of common pleas with jurisdiction to consider any and all challenges to 
the underlying administrative decision. 
{¶ 17} “Jurisdiction over an administrative appeal does not vest in a 
common pleas court unless and until an appeal is perfected.”  John Roberts Mgt. 
Co. v. Obetz, 188 Ohio App.3d 362, 2010-Ohio-3382, 935 N.E.2d 493, ¶ 11 (10th 
Dist.).  See also Richards v. Indus. Comm., 163 Ohio St. 439, 444, 127 N.E.2d 
402 (1955) (“Section 2505.04 is clearly a jurisdictional statute”).  R.C. 2505.04 
provides, “An appeal is perfected when a written notice of appeal is filed * * *.”  
R.C. 2505.05 directs, “The notice of appeal described in section 2505.04 of the 
Revised Code shall * * * designate, in the case of an administrative-related 
appeal, the final order appealed from and whether the appeal is on questions of 
law or questions of law and fact.”  It continues, “[T]he party appealing shall be 
designated the appellant, and the adverse party, the appellee.” 
{¶ 18} “When construing a statute, we first examine its plain language 
and apply the statute as written when the meaning is clear and unambiguous.”  
MedCorp, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 121 Ohio St.3d 622, 2009-
Ohio-2058, 906 N.E.2d 1125, ¶ 9.  However, “[w]hen a statute is susceptible of 
more than one interpretation, courts seek to interpret the statutory provision in a 
manner that most readily furthers the legislative purpose as reflected in the 
wording used in the legislation.”  State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. Clyde, 76 
Ohio St.3d 508, 513, 668 N.E.2d 498 (1996), citing United Tel. Co. v. Limbach, 
71 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 643 N.E.2d 1129 (1994), and Harris v. Van Hoose, 49 
Ohio St.3d 24, 26, 550 N.E.2d 461 (1990).  Further, when interpreting a statute, 
courts must “avoid an illogical or absurd result.”  State ex rel. Shisler v. Ohio 
Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 122 Ohio St.3d 148, 2009-Ohio-2522, 909 N.E.2d 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
610, ¶ 34 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting), citing In re T.R., 120 Ohio St.3d 136, 2008-
Ohio-5219, 896 N.E.2d 1003, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 19} Nowhere in the aforementioned provisions is there any express 
indication whether a single appeal vests the court of common pleas with authority 
to hear any and all challenges to the underlying administrative decision.  R.C. 
2505.04 provides that “[a]n appeal is perfected when a written notice of appeal is 
filed * * *.” 
{¶ 20} We find that the purpose served in perfecting an appeal is 
instructive in deciding this issue.  “The purpose of a notice of appeal * * * is to 
‘* * * apprise the opposite party or parties of the taking of an appeal.’ ”  Maritime 
Mfrs., Inc. v. Hi–Skipper Marina, 70 Ohio St.2d 257, 259, 436 N.E.2d 1034 
(1982), quoting Capital Loan & Savs. Co. v. Biery, 134 Ohio St. 333, 339, 16 
N.E.2d 450 (1938).  “ ‘[I]f this is done beyond (the) danger of reasonable 
misunderstanding, the purpose of the notice of appeals is accomplished.’ ”  
Maritime Mfrs. at 259, quoting Couk v. Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp., 138 Ohio St. 
110, 116, 33 N.E.2d 9 (1941).  Thus, a notice of appeal “serves to satisfy due 
process concerns by ‘ensur[ing] that the filing provides sufficient notice to other 
parties and the courts.’ ”  (Bracketing added in Glover.)  United States v. Glover, 
242 F.3d 333, 336 (6th Cir.2001), quoting Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 
S.Ct. 678, 116  L.Ed.2d 678 (1992).  We will rely on the purpose behind the 
notice requirement as our only guidance and uphold the judgment of the appellate 
court. 
{¶ 21} While Maritime Mfrs. applied the rules of appellate procedure and 
addressed the appeal of a trial court’s judgment to a court of appeals, we have 
similarly held that the filing of a notice of appeal in an R.C. 2506.01 
administrative appeal serves the purpose of informing the opposing party of the 
taking of an appeal.  Welsh Dev. Co., Inc. v. Warren Cty. Regional Planning 
Comm., 128 Ohio St.3d 471, 2011-Ohio-1604, 946 N.E.2d 215, ¶ 29. 
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
{¶ 22} An appeal of an administrative decision to a court of common 
pleas alerts the opposing party that an appeal of the underlying decision is being 
taken.  Requiring an appellee who seeks to change or reverse a portion of the 
decision to file a separate appeal also serves that purpose.  Accordingly, we hold 
that in an administrative appeal to a court of common pleas pursuant to R.C. 
2506.01, each party seeking to reverse or modify the underlying administrative 
decision must perfect a separate appeal in order to vest the common pleas court 
with jurisdiction to review each party’s respective assignments of error. 
IV. Conclusion 
{¶ 23} In the instant case, AT&T perfected an appeal of the administrative 
decision in the court of common pleas, setting forth a single assignment of error 
that pertained to the 1999 refund request.  The administrator did not perfect an 
appeal in the court of common pleas, but in his appeal brief, he asserted two 
assignments of error that sought reversal of the board’s decision regarding the 
taxpayer’s refund request for 2000 through 2002.  Because the administrator 
failed to perfect a separate appeal, the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to 
consider the administrator’s assignments of error.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and 
MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
McDonald Hopkins, L.L.C., Richard C. Farrin, and Thomas M. Zaino, for 
appellees. 
 
Robert J. Triozzi, Cleveland Law Director, and Linda L. Bickerstaff, 
Assistant Law Director, for appellant. 
______________________