Case Title: Gasper Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Preble Cty. Budget Comm.

Citation: 2008-Ohio-3322

Docket Number: 20071282

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Gasper Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Preble Cty. Budget Comm., 119 Ohio St.3d 166, 2008-
Ohio-3322.] 
 
 
GASPER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES, APPELLANT, v. PREBLE COUNTY 
BUDGET COMMISSION ET AL., APPELLEES.  
[Cite as Gasper Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Preble Cty. Budget Comm., 
 119 Ohio St.3d 166, 2008-Ohio-3322.] 
County budget commissions—Appeals to BTA—Filing by certified mail—Failure 
of delivery—R.C. 5705.37. 
(No. 2007-1282 — Submitted March 11, 2008 — Decided July 8, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2004-T-1152. 
————————— 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶ 1} The Gasper Township Board of Trustees appeals from a decision 
of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) that dismissed its appeal from an order of 
the Preble County Budget Commission allocating local government funds.  The 
BTA found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the appeal 
because the budget commission never received the Gasper Township notice of 
appeal that was mailed on October 15, 2004. 
{¶ 2} The narrow issue before this court is whether the township filed its 
notice of appeal with the budget commission to invoke the subject matter 
jurisdiction of the BTA over the appeal.  The township mailed the notice of 
appeal by certified mail to the Preble County Budget Commission on October 15, 
2004, as authorized by R.C. 5705.37.  The notice was correctly addressed.  The 
township received confirmation of delivery by the postal service.  Therefore, we 
hold that under the specific circumstances of this case, the township filed its 
notice of appeal as authorized by R.C. 5705.37, invoking the subject matter 
jurisdiction of the BTA.  We reverse the BTA’s decision. 
Procedural History 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} Dissatisfied with its share of local government funds that the 
Preble County Budget Commission had allocated for 2005, Gasper Township 
appealed to the BTA pursuant to R.C. 5705.37 and 5747.55.  The BTA received 
Gasper Township’s notice of appeal on October 18, 2004.  The BTA conducted a 
hearing on the merits of the appeal on June 10, 2005, in which both the township 
and the budget commission participated.1  On January 27, 2006, the BTA entered 
an interim order finding that the budget commission had improperly adopted the 
2005 allocation, and it scheduled further proceedings to determine the proper 
allocation of funds. 
{¶ 4} Shortly before the scheduled hearing on allocation of funds, 
counsel for appellees the villages of Eldorado, Gratis, Lewisburg, New Paris, 
West Alexandria, West Manchester, and Verona, filed an appearance in the appeal 
and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  The villages claimed that Gasper 
Township had failed to comply with R.C. 5707.37 and that the budget 
commission had failed to notify the villages of the filing of the appeal as required 
by the statute.  During this subsequent phase of the litigation, the budget 
commission also moved on October 13, 2006, to dismiss for lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction, arguing that Gasper Township’s notice of appeal had not been filed 
with the budget commission as required by R.C. 5705.37. Because jurisdictional 
issues are never waived, Painesville v. Lake Cty. Budget Comm. (1978), 56 Ohio 
St.2d 282, 10 O.O.3d 411, 383 N.E.2d 896, the BTA conducted a hearing on the 
motions to dismiss despite their having been filed at an advanced stage of the 
litigation.  At the hearing, Gasper Township presented evidence to show that it 
sent a copy of the notice of appeal by certified mail to the BTA on October 15, 
2004 (the copy that the BTA received on October 18) and another copy by 
                                                 
1.  The BTA contacted the budget commission on February 7, 2005, about a notice of appeal that 
Gasper Township had filed on October 6, 2004, and requested that the commission certify its 
transcript of proceedings to the BTA as required by statute.  As of June 6, 2005, the budget 
commission formally appeared through counsel and fully participated in the proceedings. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
certified mail to the Preble County Budget Commission, Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 
Eaton, Ohio 45320.  Debra Brock, a receptionist who worked on the first floor of 
the county courthouse for the county commissioners, testified that she had signed 
the certified-mail receipt. 
{¶ 5} The budget commission did not dispute that Gasper Township had 
sent the notice of appeal via certified mail to the specified address, but it 
presented evidence that the original notice of appeal was never received by the 
budget commission and was never located after Brock signed for it.  Based on this 
evidence, the BTA found that although Gasper Township had sent a timely notice 
of appeal to the budget commission by certified mail, as permitted by R.C. 
5705.37, the notice had not been filed because it never arrived at the appropriate 
office.  Thus, the BTA dismissed Gasper Township’s appeal for lack of subject 
matter jurisdiction.  The BTA decision addressed only the commission’s motion 
and did not directly address the villages’ contentions. 
{¶ 6} Gasper Township appeals that decision to this court and argues that 
it filed the notice of appeal in accordance with R.C. 5705.37 by sending it via 
certified mail within the 30-day filing period.  The budget commission (and the 
villages), on the other hand, urges that a notice of appeal has not been filed 
pursuant to R.C. 5705.37 until the budget commission actually receives it.  Thus, 
we must determine whether the notice of appeal has been filed with the budget 
commission upon a timely, certified mailing to the proper address per R.C. 
5705.37. 
Filing a Notice of Appeal Pursuant to R.C. 5705.37 
{¶ 7} As we stated in Painesville, 56 Ohio St.2d at 284, 10 O.O.3d 411, 
383 N.E.2d 896, “[t]he right to appeal an allocation of a local government fund to 
the Board of Tax Appeals is created by statute. * * * Therefore, if appellant has 
failed to comply with the appropriate statutory requirements, the board lacks 
subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”  Id., citing Queen City Valves, Inc. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
v. Peck (1954), 161 Ohio St. 579, 584, 53 O.O. 430, 120 N.E.2d 310, and Am. 
Restaurant & Lunch Co. v. Glander (1946), 147 Ohio St. 147, 34 O.O. 8, 70 
N.E.2d 93. 
{¶ 8} R.C. 5705.37 authorizes Gasper Township to appeal from an action 
of a county budget commission.  It provides:  “The taxing authority of any 
subdivision that is dissatisfied with any action of the county budget commission 
may, through its fiscal officer, appeal to the board of tax appeals within thirty 
days * * *.  An appeal under this section shall be taken by the filing of a notice of 
appeal, either in person or by certified mail * * *, with the board and with the 
commission.  If [a] notice of appeal is filed by certified mail * * *, [the] date of 
the United States postmark placed on the sender’s receipt by the postal service * 
* * shall be treated as the date of filing.  Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the 
commission, by certified mail, shall notify all persons who were parties to the 
proceeding before the commission of the filing of the notice of appeal and shall 
file proof of notice with the board of tax appeals.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 9} The plain language of R.C. 5705.37 requires a party to file a notice 
of appeal with the BTA and the budget commission within 30 days and authorizes 
use of certified mail for that purpose.  A party choosing to use certified mail may 
rely on the date of the postmark on the sender’s receipt as the date of filing for 
determining the timeliness of the filing. 
{¶ 10} Gasper Township satisfied the requirements of R.C. 5705.37 by 
mailing the notice of appeal within 30 days to the BTA and the budget 
commission.  It is undisputed that Gasper Township trustees properly addressed 
the notice of appeal to the Preble County Courthouse and that the budget 
commission has no fixed office in the courthouse.  The township’s fiscal officer 
testified that she received from the post office a computer-generated confirmation 
of delivery of the notice of appeal to the Preble County Budget Commission, 
signed for by Debra Brock, a Preble County employee who worked for the county 
January Term, 2008 
5 
commissioners.  Gasper Township trustees produced a copy of the post office’s 
delivery notice.  The trustees justifiably relied on the signed receipt as proof of 
filing and had no reason to further verify receipt. 
{¶ 11} The commission contends that because it has no established office, 
the township should have addressed the notice of appeal to the office of the 
county auditor, who, by law, acts as secretary for the budget commission. See 
R.C. 5705.27.  See also Salem Med. Arts & Dev. Corp. v. Columbiana Bd. of 
Revision (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 621, 687 N.E.2d 746 (where there was no 
separately maintained office for the board of revision, the appealing party could 
have filed its notice of appeal with the auditor, who acts as the secretary of the 
board).  But that is not what the statute requires.  Nevertheless, the township 
mailed the notice of appeal to the budget commission at the address used by the 
auditor’s office:  “Courthouse, 2nd Floor” in Eaton. 
{¶ 12} Therefore, under the unique and narrow circumstances of this case, 
we hold that Gasper Township complied with the statutory requirements in R.C. 
5705.37 for filing the appeal. 
Duty to Notify All Parties of the Filing of A Notice of Appeal 
Pursuant to R.C. 5705.37 
{¶ 13} The BTA did not address the other issue raised in the villages’ 
motion to dismiss, specifically the budget commission’s failure to notify the 
villages of the filing of the notice of appeal as required by R.C. 5705.37.  The 
villages contend that the notice of appeal was defective because the budget 
commission did not notify the villages of the filing of the appeal or file proof of 
the notice as required by R.C. 5705.37.2  The villages contend that Gasper 
Township was aware that the budget commission had not notified the villages, yet 
                                                 
2.  The villages also contend that Gasper Township filed its notice of appeal on October 6, 2004, 
not October 15, 2004.  Because we have determined that Gasper Township filed its notice of 
appeal on October 15, 2004, in accordance with R.C. 5705.37, we do not address the merits of the 
alleged October 6 notice.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
it chose to go forward with the appeal. As a result, the villages allege, they had no 
opportunity to participate in the June 10, 2005 evidentiary hearing before the 
BTA, although they were directly affected by the county’s allocation of funds. 
{¶ 14} R.C. 5705.37 requires the budget commission, upon receipt of the 
notice of appeal, to “notify all persons who were parties to the proceeding before 
the budget commission of the filing of the notice of appeal” by certified mail and 
to file proof of the notice with the BTA.  The villages contend that Gasper 
Township had a duty to ensure that all elements of the statute were met in order to 
properly prosecute its appeal and that the township was obligated to ensure that 
the budget commission provided all necessary parties with notice of the filing of 
the appeal.  The statutory duty to provide notice to other parties is that of the 
budget commission, not the party that filed the notice of appeal.    
{¶ 15} The budget commission was notified of the appeal (see footnote 1) 
by the BTA even if it did not receive the notice of appeal that had been delivered 
to the Preble County Courthouse.  The commission then failed to send notice to 
the villages and did not file proof of notice with the BTA.  Because we have 
determined that Gasper Township complied with R.C. 5705.37 when mailing its 
notice of appeal to the budget commission, we remand to the BTA with 
instructions to vacate its January 27, 2006 decision and to reschedule the matter 
for a hearing on the merits once the budget commission has properly notified all 
persons who were parties to the proceeding before the commission of the notice 
of appeal pursuant to R.C. 5705.37. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 16} Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Gasper Township filed 
its notice of appeal in conformity with R.C. 5705.37, that the budget commission 
failed to notify all persons who were parties to the proceeding before the 
commission of the notice of appeal, and that the BTA improperly dismissed the 
January Term, 2008 
7 
appeal.  We reverse and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this 
opinion. 
Decision reversed  
and cause remanded. 
PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
MOYER, C.J., and O’DONNELL and CUPP, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 17} The issue in this case involves an interpretation of R.C. 5705.37 
and concerns whether a notice of appeal has been filed with the budget 
commission upon a timely, certified mailing to the proper address or whether 
filing also requires actual receipt by the budget commission.  While the majority 
concludes that Gasper Township filed its notice of appeal in accordance with R.C. 
5705.37 simply by mailing it to the Preble County Budget Commission, the plain 
language of this statute establishes that a notice of appeal has not been filed unless 
it has been received by the budget commission.  Thus, I respectfully dissent. 
{¶ 18} As the majority recognizes, “[t]he right to appeal an allocation of a 
local government fund to the Board of Tax Appeals is created by statute. * * * 
Therefore, if appellant has failed to comply with the appropriate statutory 
requirements, the board lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”  
Painesville v. Lake Cty. Budget Comm. (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 282, 284, 10 
O.O.3d 411, 383 N.E.2d 896, citing Queen City Valves, Inc. v. Peck (1954), 161 
Ohio St. 579, 584, 53 O.O. 430, 120 N.E.2d 310, and Am. Restaurant & Lunch 
Co. v. Glander (1946), 147 Ohio St. 147, 34 O.O. 8, 70 N.E.2d 93. 
{¶ 19} In this case, we are required to interpret R.C. 5705.37, which 
provides:  “The taxing authority of any subdivision that is dissatisfied with any 
action of the county budget commission may, through its fiscal officer, appeal to 
the board of tax appeals within thirty days * * *.  An appeal under this section 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal, either in person or by certified 
mail * * *, with the board and with the commission.  If [a] notice of appeal is 
filed by certified mail * * *, [the] date of the United States postmark placed on 
the sender’s receipt by the postal service * * * shall be treated as the date of 
filing.  Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the commission, by certified mail, 
shall notify all persons who were parties to the proceeding before the commission 
of the filing of the notice of appeal and shall file proof of notice with the board of 
tax appeals.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 20} When construing a statute, we have emphasized that “our 
paramount concern is the legislative intent.”  State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 103 
Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 21.  And as we reiterated in 
State ex rel. Choices for South-Western City Schools v. Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 
1, 2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 40, “[t]o discern this intent, we first 
consider the statutory language, reading words and phrases in context and 
construing them in accordance with rules of grammar and common usage.” 
{¶ 21} Here, the plain language of R.C. 5705.37 requires a party to file a 
notice of appeal with the budget commission within 30 days, and it authorizes use 
of certified mail for that purpose.  A party choosing to use certified mail may rely 
on the date of the postmark on the sender’s receipt as the date of filing for 
determining the timeliness of the filing, but that party has the further obligation to 
also ensure that the notice of appeal has been received in the proper office.  This 
portion of the statute does not specify that the date on the receipt shall be treated 
as the date the budget commission received the filing. 
{¶ 22} Rather, the statute plainly expresses the legislature’s intent that a 
notice of appeal is not filed until the budget commission actually receives it.  R.C. 
5705.37 specifies that “[u]pon receipt of the notice of appeal, the commission * * 
* shall notify all persons who were parties to the proceeding before the 
commission of the filing of the notice of appeal and shall file proof of notice with 
January Term, 2008 
9 
the board of tax appeals.” (Emphasis added.)  The statute thus contemplates two 
aspects of filing a notice of appeal:  the timeliness of the filing and the actual 
receipt of the filing by the budget commission, which triggers further duties for 
the commission to undertake.  In this way, the General Assembly has expressed 
its intent for the budget commission to receive the notice of appeal in a timely 
fashion. 
{¶ 23} The majority concludes that the budget commission had a duty to 
notify “all persons who were parties to the proceeding before the commission of 
the filing of the notice of appeal,” R.C. 5705.37, because “[t]he budget 
commission was notified of the appeal * * * by the BTA even if it did not receive 
the notice of appeal that had been delivered to the Preble County Courthouse.”  ¶ 
15.  But R.C. 5705.37 establishes that the commission’s duty to notify arises only 
“[u]pon receipt of the notice of appeal” (emphasis added), not as the majority 
holds, “upon notification of the notice of appeal.”  Thus, by substituting its word 
for the word chosen by the legislature, the majority violates the well-established 
maxim of statutory construction that “it is the duty of this court to give effect to 
the words used, not to delete words used or to insert words not used.”  Cleveland 
Elec. Illum. Co. v. Cleveland (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 50, 524 N.E.2d 441, 
paragraph three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 24} Moreover, the ordinary meaning of the word “file” indicates 
completed delivery.  Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.2004) 660 defines the verb 
“file” as to “deliver a legal document to the court clerk or record custodian for 
placement into the official record.”  We relied upon this definition in State ex rel. 
Stoll v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 76, 2008-Ohio-333, 881 
N.E.2d 1214, ¶35, in which we held that a referendum petition delivered to the 
private residence of a township trustee but never given to the township fiscal 
officer or placed in the township records had not been filed in accordance with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
R.C. 519.12(H).  See also State ex rel. Canales-Flores v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 129, 2005-Ohio-5642, 841 N.E.2d 757, ¶ 26. 
{¶ 25} Similarly, in Fulton v. State ex rel. Gen. Motors Corp. (1936), 130 
Ohio St. 494, 5 O.O. 142, 200 N.E. 636, we concluded that the word “filed” in 
G.C. 710-98a required actual delivery into the custody of the addressee.  Id., 
paragraph one of the syllabus, cited with approval in Elkem Metals Co. v. 
Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 683, 687, 693 N.E.2d 276.  
As we noted in Fulton, “[t]he act of mailing was but the initial step taken in the 
process of transmission of the claim and did not constitute a ‘filing.’  The date of 
mailing is therefore immaterial.  The fact which is controlling is the time of actual 
delivery of the claim into the official custody and control of the Superintendent of 
Banks, for it was then that the claim was ‘filed.’ ”  130 Ohio St. at 500, 5 O.O. 
142, 200 N.E. 636. 
{¶ 26} It has never been the law that the act of mailing is equivalent to the 
act of filing.  Rather, in numerous contexts, we have held that jurisdiction does 
not vest in a tribunal until the appropriate document has been filed.  See, e.g., 
Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (2001), 91 
Ohio St.3d 308, 744 N.E.2d 751 (board of revision); Hartsock v. Chrysler Corp. 
(1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 171, 541 N.E.2d 1037 (appeal from the Industrial 
Commission); Hansford v. Steinbacher (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 72, 514 N.E.2d 
1385 (appeal from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review). 
{¶ 27} Based on the foregoing, it is my view that in an appeal from an 
allocation of local government funds, a notice of appeal has not been filed in 
accordance with R.C. 5705.37 unless it has been received by the budget 
commission.  While the statute provides that the date of the postmark on the 
sender’s receipt shall be treated as the date of filing, it does not relieve a party of 
the obligation to ensure that the budget commission actually receives the notice of 
appeal.  The party choosing to appeal bears the burden to ensure the receipt of the 
January Term, 2008 
11 
filing, and those who wait until the last day foreclose opportunities to correct 
mistakes. 
{¶ 28} In this case, although a receptionist employed by the county 
commissioners signed the certified-mail receipt for the notice of appeal, the 
budget commission never received it as required by statute.  Thus, Gasper failed 
to file its notice of appeal in conformity with R.C. 5705.37, and the BTA properly 
dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  For these reasons, I 
respectfully dissent. 
MOYER, C.J., and CUPP, J., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
John R. Varanese, for appellant. 
 
Richard F. Hoffman, for appellee Preble County Budget Commission. 
 
Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, L.L.P., John W. Bentine, Elizabeth J. Watters, 
and Lark T. Mallory, for appellees the villages of Eldorado, Gratis, Lewisburg, 
New Paris, West Alexandria, West Manchester, and Verona. 
______________________