Title: Cleveland Mun. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Mun. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 105 Ohio 
St.3d 404, 2005-Ohio-2285.] 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE; 
ROYAL FINANCING, LLC, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF 
REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Cleveland Mun. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 
Revision, 105 Ohio St.3d 404, 2005-Ohio-2285.] 
Real property taxation—R.C. 5715.19—Continuing complaints as to value. 
(No. 2003-0804 — Submitted January 12, 2005 — Decided 
May 25, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2002-V-2168,  
2002-V-2172, 2002-V-2398, and 2002-V-2399. 
__________________ 
 
LANZINGER, J. 
{¶ 1} The question presented by this appeal is whether the Cuyahoga 
County Board of Revision (“BOR”) had jurisdiction over a complaint filed on 
June 27, 2000, to revise property valuations for a Cleveland office building for the 
tax years 1997 and 1998.  We conclude that it did not.  There is no statutory 
provision for such a complaint; appellant’s proposed extension of Columbus Bd. 
of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 305, 720 N.E.2d 
517, to claim a continuation of an earlier complaint is unwarranted and 
miscommunication of the type seen here can instead be resolved if county boards 
of revision and the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) specify the years covered by 
their orders. 
I. Background 
{¶ 2} This case must be considered in the context of a series of statutes 
governing administrative bodies involved in real estate taxation. The Tax 
Commissioner is charged with the duty of ordering all real property in each 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
county to be appraised once every six years.  This is usually referred to as the 
sexennial appraisal.  R.C. 5715.33.  The actual appraisal of the real property in 
each county is the county auditor’s duty.  R.C. 5713.01.  In addition to the 
sexennial appraisal, values are adjusted by the county auditor in the third year 
between the sexennial appraisals.  R.C. 5715.24.  This interim adjustment is 
usually referred to as the triennial update. 
{¶ 3} A taxpayer who believes that his or her property has been wrongly 
valued may file a real-property-valuation complaint with the county board of 
revision.  R.C. 5715.19.  The county board of revision hears the complaint and 
determines the value of the property.  A property owner dissatisfied with the value 
determined by the county board of revision may appeal to the BTA.  R.C. 
5717.01.  In turn, BTA decisions may be appealed directly to this court, as a 
matter of right.  R.C. 5717.04. 
{¶ 4} The appellant here, Royal Financing, LLC (“Royal”), is the current 
owner of an office building in Cleveland, Ohio.  The previous owner, the 
Cleveland Citizens Building Limited Liability Company, had filed an earlier 
complaint for tax year 1994.  After the BOR upheld the auditor’s valuation of the 
property under the 1994 complaint, the owner appealed to the BTA.  While the 
appeal was pending, the parties stipulated that the true value of the property was 
$2,650,000.  On January 30, 1998, the BTA ordered the Cuyahoga County 
Auditor to correct his tax records to reflect the stipulated value, which was to “be 
carried forward according to law.”  No specific tax years were identified in the 
BTA’s order. 
{¶ 5} More than two years later, on April 18, 2000, the Cuyahoga 
County Auditor notified the previous owner that, as the result of a review of the 
BTA’s decision, the market value of the property had been revised from 
$6,200,000 to $3,800,000 for tax years 1997 through 1999.  The auditor’s letter 
January Term, 2005 
3 
stated that the tax amount would be adjusted through a revised bill for the second-
half tax collection. 
{¶ 6} Royal first became involved with the tax situation after it became 
an owner.  On June 27, 2000, it filed a complaint with the BOR claiming that the 
true value was lower, i.e., $2,200,000, for tax years 1997 through 1999.1  The 
Cleveland Municipal School District Board of Education filed a countercomplaint 
proffering the auditor’s $3,800,000 assessment as the true property value. 
{¶ 7} The BOR held a hearing on the dispute and determined the true 
value of the property for tax year 1997 to be $3,000,000.  The record does not 
show a decision by the BOR on Royal’s complaint for tax years 1998 or 1999.  
Royal filed appeals for tax years 1997 and 1998, and the board of education 
appealed the determination for tax year 1997.  The board of education also 
contended that the BOR had no jurisdiction initially to consider Royal’s valuation 
complaint for tax years 1997 and 1998 and so asked the BTA to vacate the BOR’s 
decision and order the auditor to reinstate his valuation. 
{¶ 8} The BTA agreed with the board of education and ordered the BOR 
to dismiss Royal’s complaint for tax years 1997 and 1998.  It also ordered 
reinstatement of the auditor’s valuations for tax years 1997 and 1998 as set forth 
in his April 18, 2000 letter.  This case is now before this court on an appeal as of 
right. 
II.  Discussion 
{¶ 9} The general time requirements for filing a complaint against real-
property valuation are set forth in R.C. 5715.19, which provides:2  
                                          
 
1.  In addition to the complaint under review in this case, a complaint for tax year 1999 was filed 
by the previous owner and is pending before the BTA.   
 
2.  This is the version of R.C. 5715.19 in effect at the time the complaint was filed.  1998 
Sub.H.B. No. 694, 147 Ohio Laws, Part III, 5373.  The statute was later amended in 2002 by 
Sub.H.B. 390. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} “(1) Subject to division (A)(2) of this section, a complaint against 
any of the following determinations for the current tax year shall be filed with the 
county auditor on or before the thirty-first day of March of the ensuing tax year: 
{¶ 11} “* * * 
{¶ 12} “(d) The determination of the total valuation or assessment of any 
parcel that appears on the tax list * * *.” 
 
{¶ 13} In summary, R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) requires that a complaint for the 
current tax year be filed by March 31 of the ensuing year.  This means, for example, 
that if a taxpayer wants to challenge the valuation of real property for tax year 2003, 
the complaint against the real property valuation must be filed by March 31, 2004. 
{¶ 14} Thus, for the BOR to have jurisdiction over a complaint concerning a 
property valuation for tax year 1997, the complaint had to be filed with the BOR by 
March 31, 1998.  Likewise, a complaint for a 1998 tax year valuation had to be filed 
with the BOR by March 31, 1999.  Royal’s June 27, 2000 complaint does not meet the 
requirements of R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) for the filing of a complaint concerning tax years 
1997 and 1998.  Nonetheless, Royal contends that the BOR already had continuing 
jurisdiction over tax years 1997 and 1998  because a complaint regarding the 
property’s valuation had been filed by the previous owner for tax year 1994 but had 
not been finally determined on appeal to the BTA until January 1998. 
{¶ 15} Royal relies on Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of 
Revision (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 305, 720 N.E.2d 517 (referred to as “Inner City,” 
after the name of the property owner), to argue that the BOR had jurisdiction, by 
virtue of a continuing complaint.  This concept arises from R.C. 5715.19(D): 
 
{¶ 16} “If a complaint filed under this section for the current year is not 
determined by the board [of revision] within the time prescribed for such 
determination [i.e., 90 days], the complaint and any proceedings in relation 
thereto shall be continued by the board as a valid complaint for any ensuing year 
until such complaint is finally determined by the board or upon any appeal from a 
January Term, 2005 
5 
decision of the board.  In such case, the original complaint shall continue in effect 
without further filing by the original taxpayer, the original taxpayer’s assignee, or 
any other person or entity authorized to file a complaint under this section.” 
{¶ 17} In Inner City, the property owner, Inner City Catholic Parishes, 
Inc., filed a real-property-valuation complaint with the Franklin County Board of 
Revision for tax year 1993.  Although the board of revision granted some 
reduction, Inner City deemed it insufficient and appealed to the BTA.  On August 
30, 1996, the BTA granted Inner City a further reduction in value and ordered the 
auditor “to list and assess the subject property in conformity with this Board’s 
decision and order.”  Id., 87 Ohio St.3d at 306, 720 N.E.2d 517. 
{¶ 18} Based on the BTA’s decision, the county sent Inner City a refund 
for the 1993–1995 triennium, but also sent a bill for tax year 1996 that indicated  
the value of the property to be  the amount originally assessed by the auditor for 
tax year 1993, plus an increase of five percent.  The five percent increase 
apparently reflected the amount by which the auditor had increased property 
values throughout the county as a result of the triennial update under R.C. 
5715.24. 
{¶ 19} Inner City believed that the 1993 BTA property valuation should 
have been carried forward for tax year 1996, the first year of the next triennium.  
On February 5, 1997, it sent a letter, but not a formal complaint, to the Franklin 
County Board of Revision requesting that the 1993 tax year valuation be 
continued forward as the value for tax year 1996.  The board of revision treated 
the letter as a continuing complaint from tax year 1993 and held a hearing, 
eventually finding that the 1996 tax year valuation should have been the reduced 
1993 value determined by the BTA plus a five percent increase. 
{¶ 20} The Columbus Board of Education appealed to the BTA, which 
vacated the board of revision’s decision and reinstated the auditor’s valuation, 
holding that the August 30, 1996 decision had become conclusive to all parties 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
after the appeal time had run without the filing of a new formal complaint.  On 
appeal to this court, Inner City contended that its complaint was covered by the 
continuing-complaint provision of R.C. 5715.19(D) that gave the board of 
revision jurisdiction to adjust the property valuation for 1996.  The board of 
education, on the other hand, contended that Inner City was required to file a new 
complaint to contest the 1996 valuation. 
{¶ 21} This court concluded that R.C. 5715.19(D) continued the 
complaint into the determination year.  Because the 1993 complaint was 
determined by the BTA on August 30, 1996, we held that the complaint continued 
to be valid for the remainder of 1996 and that the taxpayer was not required to file 
a “fresh” complaint to contest the BTA’s valuation for tax year 1996.  We noted, 
“The auditor should have automatically carried over the 1993 value determined in 
1996 by the BTA for tax year 1996.”  Id., 87 Ohio St.3d at 307, 720 N.E.2d 517. 
III. Conclusion 
{¶ 22} Our holding in Inner City does not require reversal of the 
BTA’s dismissal of Royal’s June 27, 2000 complaint.  Under the 
continuing-complaint provisions of R.C. 5715.19(D) as interpreted by 
Inner City, the property owner already had a continuing complaint 
pending for the tax year 1996, the tax year in which it contested the 
renewal of the original valuation.  The property owner sought merely to 
preserve the lower valuation it had obtained from the BTA; it did not seek 
to further reduce that valuation. 
{¶ 23} Here, in contrast, Royal’s complaint did not seek to 
maintain the $2,650,000 valuation that had been agreed to by the previous 
owner and the other parties and ordered by the BTA; the complaint sought 
to further reduce the valuation to $2,200,000.  The complaint as filed by 
Royal on June 27, 2000, was a new complaint seeking a new value and, as 
previously noted, was not filed within the statutory time limit.  However, 
January Term, 2005 
7 
dismissal of this complaint does not mean that the continuing complaints 
for 1997 and 1998 have been resolved by the BOR.  As shown in Inner 
City, the property owner need not file a new complaint to seek 
enforcement of the BTA’s order concerning valuation.  A letter calling the 
board of revision’s attention to the fact that the auditor has not complied 
with the BTA’s order is sufficient.  The continuing complaints for 1997 
and 1998 remain open until the auditor has complied with the January 30, 
1998 order of the BTA. 
{¶ 24} As this case shows, problems under R.C. 5715.19(D) can easily 
arise when general language regarding real estate valuation is directed to the 
county auditor with the words “to be carried forward according to law.”  This 
language can leave the parties and the auditor confused over the exact years to 
which the decision applies.  See Oberlin Manor Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of 
Revision (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 1, 629 N.E.2d 1361.  If the boards of revision and 
the BTA would specify the years covered by their orders to the auditor and other 
county officials, the miscommunication we see here could be avoided. 
{¶ 25} In summary, we affirm the part of the Board of Tax Appeal’s 
decision that grants the motion to dismiss Royal’s June 27, 2000 complaint as 
being reasonable and lawful.  However, we vacate the part of the Board of Tax 
Appeal’s decision that orders the auditor to reinstate the values set forth in his 
April 18, 2000 letter, for the board of revision has not yet determined the 
property’s correct value.  Until the board of revision does so, it would be 
premature to order the auditor to determine a valuation.  See R.C. 5717.03. 
Decision affirmed in part 
and vacated in part. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Britton, Smith, Peters & Kalail Co., L.P.A., Karrie M. Kalail, David H. 
Seed, and David A. Rose, for appellee Cleveland Municipal School District Board 
of Education. 
 
Rich, Crites & Wesp and Jeffrey A. Rich, for appellant. 
______________________