Title: Life Path Partners, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Life 
Path Partners, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-230.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-230 
LIFE PATH PARTNERS, LTD., APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF 
REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Life Path Partners, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip 
Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-230.] 
Taxation—Real-property valuation—R.C. 5715.19(D)—Property owner properly 
invoked continuing-complaint jurisdiction of county board of revision over 
owner’s challenge to county fiscal officer’s valuation of property for tax 
year 2012—Board of Tax Appeals’ decision affirming dismissal of 
complaint reversed and cause remanded. 
(No. 2015-0759—Submitted June 6, 2017—Decided January 16, 2018.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2015-39. 
__________________ 
DEWINE, J. 
{¶ 1} Ordinarily, pursuant to R.C. 5715.19(A), a taxpayer protesting the 
valuation of a property must file a complaint by March 31 of the year succeeding 
the tax year in question—e.g., a taxpayer disputing a valuation for tax year 2012 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
would have to file a complaint by March 31, 2013.  But R.C. 5715.19(D) provides 
an exception to that requirement—if a taxpayer already has a complaint in the 
pipeline regarding that particular parcel and the county board of revision does not 
determine that complaint within 90 days, the taxpayer does not need to file 
complaints in succeeding years regarding that same parcel for as long as the original 
complaint is unresolved.  Thus, a county board of revision may exercise 
“continuing-complaint jurisdiction” over a real-property-valuation dispute for a 
given tax year even though no formal complaint was filed for that year.  E.g., 1495 
Jaeger, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 132 Ohio St.3d 222, 2012-Ohio-
2680, 970 N.E.2d 949, ¶ 18. 
{¶ 2} In the case before us, Life Path Partners, Ltd. (“Life Path”) sought to 
challenge the valuation of its property for tax year 2012 under the continuing-
complaint provision.  All the statutory requirements for continuing-complaint 
jurisdiction were met: the original complaint had not been resolved in 90 days and 
not until 2012.  Nonetheless, the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (“BOR”) 
dismissed the case because Life Path had not asked the BOR to exercise its 
continuing-complaint jurisdiction prior to the deadline that would have applied if 
Life Path had filed a new complaint challenging the 2012 valuation (i.e., March 31, 
2013).  The Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) affirmed the BOR’s decision.  We now 
reverse the BTA’s decision and remand the cause to the BOR.  The deadline 
imposed by the BOR and BTA is contrary to the plain terms of the continuing-
complaint-jurisdiction statute, R.C. 5715.19(D). 
BACKGROUND 
{¶ 3} In February 2010, Life Path filed a complaint with the BOR against 
the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer’s valuation for tax year 2009 of Life Path’s .17-
acre parcel located in Lakewood.  The complaint sought to reduce the property’s 
true value from $172,700 to $52,000.  The Lakewood City School District Board 
of Education filed a countercomplaint, urging retention of the fiscal officer’s 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
valuation.  On January 5, 2012, the BOR issued a decision reducing the property’s 
value for tax year 2009 to $94,900. 
{¶ 4} Life Path appealed that determination to the BTA.  The tax-year-2009 
dispute was ultimately resolved in November 2012, when the BTA approved a 
stipulation establishing the property’s taxable value at $35,000—correlating to a 
true value of $100,000, see Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-05(B) (defining a property’s 
taxable value as 35 percent of its true value)—for tax years 2008 through 2011.  
The stipulation did not address the property’s value for tax year 2012. 
{¶ 5} The fiscal officer valued the property at $172,000 for tax year 2012.  
Life Path did not file a complaint to challenge that valuation.  Such a complaint 
would have to have been filed by March 31, 2013.  See R.C. 5715.19(A).  Instead, 
in October 2014, Life Path sent a letter to the BOR requesting a reduction of the 
2012 valuation to $119,000.1  In Life Path’s view, its failure to file a tax-year-2012 
complaint did not deprive the BOR of jurisdiction.  Life Path argued that the BOR 
could exercise continuing-complaint jurisdiction over the tax-year-2012 value 
because the BOR did not rule on its tax-year-2009 complaint within 90 days as 
required by R.C. 5715.19(C) and the complaint remained pending before the BTA 
into 2012.  But the BOR dismissed Life Path’s challenge to the tax-year-2012 
valuation for lack of jurisdiction.  The BOR determined that Life Path’s request 
was untimely because it was not made by March 31, 2013, the deadline for filing a 
complaint for tax year 2012. 
{¶ 6} Life Path appealed to the BTA, requesting that it remand the matter 
to the BOR to issue a value determination for tax year 2012.  The BTA construed 
                                                          
 
1 Life Path’s letter states that it “filed a 2010 tax year complaint on or around February 17, 2011 
[sic, 2010].”  The parties’ briefs, however, regard this letter as describing Life Path’s tax-year-2009 
complaint.  And the BTA’s April 2015 decision likewise regarded Life Path as relying on its tax-
year-2009 complaint as providing a foundation for invoking the BOR’s continuing-complaint 
jurisdiction over the tax-year-2012 valuation.  In light of the parties’ and the BTA’s references to 
tax year 2009, we presume that the letter’s reference to tax year 2010 was mistaken. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Life Path’s appeal as requiring a determination whether R.C. 5715.19(D) imposes 
a deadline for invoking the BOR’s continuing-complaint jurisdiction.  Although the 
BTA acknowledged that R.C. 5715.19(D) does not definitively set forth a deadline 
for invoking continuing-complaint jurisdiction, it nevertheless determined that it 
was proper to subject Life Path’s request to the same deadline that would have 
applied had Life Path filed a complaint for tax year 2012.  Thus, it concluded that 
Life Path should have submitted its letter to the BOR by March 31, 2013.  Because 
Life Path did not do so until October 2014, the BTA determined that Life Path failed 
to invoke the BOR’s continuing-complaint jurisdiction.  The BTA reasoned that a 
contrary holding would produce the absurd result of permitting the BOR’s 
continuing-complaint jurisdiction to be invoked “in perpetuity.”  BTA No. 2015-
39, 2015 Ohio Tax LEXIS 2126, *6 (Apr. 17, 2015).  Life Path then filed this 
appeal. 
LAW AND ANALYSIS 
{¶ 7} The question before us is a simple one: does the BOR have 
jurisdiction over Life Path’s challenge to the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer’s 
valuation of the subject property for tax year 2012?   To answer, we simply need to 
look to the plain terms of R.C. 5715.19(D): 
 
If a complaint filed under this section for the current year is not 
determined by the board within the time prescribed for such 
determination, 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 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. 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
 
{¶ 8} The taxpayer, Life Path, filed a complaint “under this section.”  The 
complaint “was not determined by the [BOR] within the time prescribed for such 
determination,” i.e., within the 90-day period set forth in R.C. 5715.19(C).  
Therefore, the complaint “shall be continued * * * as a valid complaint for any 
ensuing year until [the] complaint is finally determined.”  The complaint was not 
finally determined until 2012, so it continued in effect for that tax year “without 
further filing by the * * * taxpayer.”  And because it continued in effect, the BOR 
has jurisdiction to issue a value determination for 2012. 
{¶ 9} R.C. 5715.19(D) is less clear on the mechanics of how to assert 
continuing-complaint jurisdiction over the value for a tax year that is left 
unresolved by the final determination of the original complaint.  But submitting a 
request letter to the board of revision is enough to invoke the BOR’s jurisdiction 
pursuant to the original complaint.  See Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. 
of Revision, 87 Ohio St.3d 305, 306, 720 N.E.2d 517 (1999); AERC Saw Mill 
Village, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 127 Ohio St.3d 44, 2010-Ohio-4468, 
936 N.E.2d 472, ¶ 7.  Life Path filed such a request letter in October 2014. 
{¶ 10} The BTA’s decision is contrary to the plain language of R.C. 
5715.19(D)—nothing in that provision authorizes the BOR to dismiss a continuing 
complaint for lack of timeliness.  And allowing a taxpayer to invoke a board of 
revision’s continuing-complaint jurisdiction beyond March 31 of the year 
following the year the original complaint is resolved is consistent with our 
precedent.  In AERC, this court held that the board of revision had continuing-
complaint jurisdiction when the original complaint was resolved in September 2006 
and the taxpayer submitted after March 31, 2007, a letter invoking continuing 
jurisdiction over a 2005 valuation.  If the lack of a deadline is a problem, it’s up to 
the General Assembly to make an easy fix: 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
When the meaning of the language employed in a statute is 
clear, the fact that its application works an inconvenience or 
accomplishes a result not anticipated or desired should be taken 
cognizance of by the legislative body, for such consequence can be 
avoided only by a change of the law itself, which must be made by 
legislative enactment and not by judicial construction. 
 
State ex rel. Nimberger v. Bushnell, 95 Ohio St. 203, 116 N.E. 464 (1917), syllabus. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 11} Because Life Path properly invoked the BOR’s continuing-
complaint jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 5715.19(D), we reverse the BTA’s decision 
affirming the BOR’s dismissal.  We remand the cause to the BOR for further 
proceedings in accordance with this opinion. 
Decision reversed 
and cause remanded. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, and 
FISCHER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Karen H. Bauernschmidt, and 
Nicholas Ray, for appellant. 
 
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark 
R. Greenfield, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Cuyahoga County 
Fiscal Officer and Cuyahoga County Board of Revision. 
Brindza, McIntyre & Seed, L.L.P., Robert A. Brindza, Daniel McIntyre, 
David H. Seed, and David A. Rose, for appellee Lakewood City School District 
Board of Education. 
_________________