Title: Yanega 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 
Yanega v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5208.] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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-5208 
YANEGA, APPELLEE, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., 
APPELLANTS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Yanega v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 
2018-Ohio-5208.] 
Taxation—Jurisdiction to review a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is 
dependent on the notice of appeal that is filed—Court lacks jurisdiction to 
consider errors not assigned in the notice of appeal—Board of Tax Appeals 
erred in reducing value on ground that it was applying a countywide blanket 
reduction—No evidence was presented showing that reduction was applied 
countywide. 
(No. 2017-1352—Submitted September 11, 2018—Decided December 27, 2018.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2016-1585. 
_________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
DEWINE, J. 
{¶ 1} The Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (“BOR”) and the Cuyahoga 
County fiscal officer (collectively, “the county”) appeal from a decision of the 
Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) that reduced the taxable value of a piece of property 
for tax year 2015.  The BTA performed a two-stage reduction:  it reduced the 
taxable value from $66,000 to $48,000 and then imposed an additional 10 percent 
reduction to arrive at a value of $43,210.  The notice of appeal filed by the county 
did not challenge the initial reduction to $48,000; thus, we lack jurisdiction to 
consider the challenge to that reduction that the county seeks to advance in its 
briefing.  The notice of appeal did challenge the additional 10 percent reduction, 
and we conclude that challenge has merit.  Thus, we affirm the decision of the BTA 
in part and we reverse in part. 
Background 
{¶ 2} This appeal involves a .14-acre residential property owned by Robert 
Yanega.  At issue is the valuation of the property for tax year 2015.  For the prior 
tax year—the 2014 tax year—Yanega had filed a complaint with the BOR, 
challenging the valuation of the property.  On December 3, 2015, the BOR reduced 
the property’s value for tax year 2014 from $78,200 to $48,000. 
{¶ 3} The tax year at issue in this case, 2015, was an update year in the 
county.  For that tax year, the fiscal officer valued the property at $70,400—a figure 
that reflected a 10 percent reduction from the original $78,200 value assessed by 
the fiscal officer for 2014.  Yanega filed a complaint seeking a reduction of the 
2015 value.  He asked that the BOR value the property at either $48,000 (the 
redetermined amount for the 2014 tax year) or $15,000 (the amount of a 2013 sale 
of the property).  The BOR reduced the value to $66,000 for 2015, and Yanega 
appealed to the BTA. 
{¶ 4} At the BTA, the parties waived their appearance at the hearing, but 
Yanega filed a brief asking for an additional 10 percent downward adjustment to 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
the 2014 tax value of $48,000.  Yanega argued that because the fiscal officer had 
reduced the 2014 tax valuation of $78,200 by 10 percent to reach a 2015 valuation 
of $70,400, a “10 percent update factor” should be applied to the tax value of 
$48,000 that he sought for 2015.  The county did not respond to Yanega’s brief. 
{¶ 5} The BTA adopted Yanega’s arguments and valued the property at 
$43,210 for 2015.  BTA No. 2016-1585, 2017 WL 3866907, *3 (Aug. 24, 2017).  
The BTA’s value was derived by carrying over the 2014 redetermined value of the 
property to 2015 and then applying a 10 percent reduction.  Although the BTA was 
not explicit in its rationale for carrying over the 2014 value to 2015, it did note that 
Yanega had cited R.C. 5715.19.  R.C. 5715.19 contains the continuing-complaint 
provision, which provides that “[l]iability for taxes * * * for such year and each 
succeeding year until the complaint is finally determined * * * shall be based upon 
the determination, valuation, or assessment as finally determined.”  Presumably, 
the BTA found the provision to be applicable because the 2014 complaint was not 
determined until December 3, 2015.  In ordering the 10 percent reduction from the 
redetermined 2014 value, the BTA concluded that when an auditor has performed 
a countywide update, the “update percentage” should be applied to a redetermined 
value that is being carried over from a prior year.  BTA No. 2016-1585, 2017 WL 
3866907, at *2.  As evidentiary basis for the calculation of the 10 percent reduction, 
the BTA cited the 2014 initial valuation of the property and compared that number 
to the fiscal officer’s valuation for 2015.  Id. 
{¶ 6} The county filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the 10 
percent reduction.  It argued that there was no evidence in the record to support a 
blanket 10 percent reduction and that the sole bases for the 10 percent reduction 
were statements made in Yanega’s brief.  The BTA denied the motion.  The county 
filed a notice of appeal to this court. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Filings in this court 
{¶ 7} The county’s notice of appeal sets forth three errors, all largely 
repetitive of each other and all relating to the evidentiary basis for the BTA’s 10 
percent reduction of the property value.  First, the county argues that there was no 
evidence in the record to support the 10 percent reduction.  Next, the county argues 
that the BTA must limit its consideration to the transcript certified by the BOR and 
evidence submitted during BTA hearings.  It contends that because the parties 
waived their appearances at the hearing and nothing in the transcript supported the 
BTA’s 10 percent reduction, that reduction was unlawful.  Finally, the county 
challenges the reduction because “the BTA cannot manufacture evidence from 
documents, that were not objected to because no hearing was held.” 
{¶ 8} In its reply brief, the county for the first time argues that the BTA 
erred by carrying over the 2014 value to 2015 under R.C. 5715.19(D) because 
Yanega filed a fresh complaint for the 2015 tax year. 
Analysis 
{¶ 9} We have long held that “the carryover from the filing of a prior 
complaint is not applicable to the tax year and succeeding years for which a valid 
new complaint is filed and determined by a board of revision.”  Cincinnati School 
Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 74 Ohio St.3d 639, 642, 660 
N.E.2d 1179 (1996).  The county relies upon this principle in arguing in its reply 
brief that the BTA erred by carrying the 2014 value over to the 2015 tax year. 
{¶ 10} But our jurisdiction to review a decision of the BTA is dependent 
upon the notice of appeal that is filed.  R.C. 5717.04 provides that an appellant’s 
notice of appeal “shall set forth the decision of the board appealed from and the 
errors therein complained of.”  We have held that compliance with this provision 
is a jurisdictional requirement: “Thus, errors not specified may not be asserted as a 
basis for relief in the brief to the court because the lack of specification deprives 
the court of jurisdiction to grant relief on that basis.”  Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 144 Ohio St.3d 421, 2015-Ohio-4522, 44 N.E.3d 
274, ¶ 11.  This is because there is no inherent right to appeal an administrative 
decision; rather, the right must be conferred by statute.  Midwest Fireworks Mfg. 
Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 91 Ohio St.3d 174, 177, 743 
N.E.2d 894 (2001).  And “[w]here a statute confers the right of appeal, adherence 
to the conditions thereby imposed is essential to the enjoyment of the right 
conferred.”  Am. Restaurant & Lunch Co. v. Glander, 147 Ohio St. 147, 70 N.E.2d 
93 (1946), paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 11} We have enforced this requirement and have consistently held that 
we lack jurisdiction to consider errors not assigned in a notice of appeal.  See, e.g., 
Apple Group Ltd. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 434, 2014-Ohio-
2381, 12 N.E.3d 1188, ¶ 13; HK New Plan Exchange Property Owner II, L.L.C. v. 
Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 122 Ohio St.3d 438, 2009-Ohio-3546, 912 N.E.2d 
95, ¶ 24; Newman v. Levin, 120 Ohio St.3d 127, 2008-Ohio-5202, 896 N.E.2d 995, 
¶ 28; Norandex, Inc. v. Limbach, 69 Ohio St.3d 26, 31, 630 N.E. 329 (1994), fn. 1.  
Because the county failed to properly raise the carryover issue in its notice of 
appeal, we lack jurisdiction to consider that issue. 
{¶ 12} That leaves the county’s challenge to the additional 10 percent 
reduction of the property’s value.  In applying the 10 percent reduction, the BTA 
relied on Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 87 Ohio St.3d 305, 
720 N.E.2d 517 (1999) (“Inner City”).  But on this record, Inner City provides no 
support for applying a 10 percent reduction to the redetermined value for tax year 
2014. 
{¶ 13} In Inner City, the property owner successfully obtained a property 
value reduction for tax year 1993 that also applied for 1994 and 1995.  For tax year 
1996, the auditor applied a 5 percent increase to properties throughout the county.  
Instead of applying this countywide update percentage increase to the property’s 
redetermined value for 1993, however, the county applied it to the property’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
original value for 1993.  Inner City challenged the auditor’s valuation for tax year 
1996 before the BOR.  The BOR corrected the mistake by applying the countywide 
5 percent update percentage to the property’s redetermined value.  Id. at 306.  The 
BTA vacated the BOR’s valuation, but we reinstated it on appeal, finding that the 
BOR had jurisdiction to order the change to value.  Id. at 308. 
{¶ 14} The BTA treated Inner City as supporting its application of the 
update percentage to Yanega’s property value.  But there is nothing in this record 
showing that the 10 percent decrease that the auditor applied to Yanega’s property 
was applied to other properties in the county on a uniform basis.  In Inner City, the 
BOR adjusted the property value based on a record that reflected that the update 
was countywide.  Here, Yanega provided the BOR and the BTA with no evidence 
demonstrating that the 10 percent reduction was applied countywide or that it was 
based on any type of an across-the-board reduction in property values.  In fact, in 
his notice of appeal to the BTA, Yanega indicated that his opinion of the property’s 
value was $48,000—i.e., the redetermined 2014 value, without an additional 10 
percent decrease—and that he was requesting a hearing.  If Yanega wished to 
demonstrate that a value other than $48,000 was appropriate, he could have 
attended the hearing he requested and sought to supplement the record. 
{¶ 15} Instead, he relied on a transcript that lacked any evidence showing a 
basis for the auditor’s 10 percent reduction.  He also waived appearance at the 
hearing.  Because the record provided no basis for concluding that the auditor’s 10 
percent adjustment of the original 2014 value should have been applied to the 
reduced 2014 value, the BTA’s reduction was made in error. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 16} The county failed to set forth the carryover issue in its notice of 
appeal; thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider that issue.  But because the record 
provided no basis for the BTA to apply an additional 10 percent reduction to 
January Term, 2018 
 
7
Yanega’s property value as redetermined for tax year 2014, we reverse the BTA’s 
reduction, and order that the value be modified to $48,000. 
Decision affirmed in part 
and reversed in part. 
KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs in judgment only. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents, with an opinion. 
_________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 17} Respectfully, I dissent. 
{¶ 18} I would reverse the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.  Robert 
Yanega filed a separate complaint for tax year 2015, and therefore the carryover 
provision in R.C. 5715.19(D) is inapplicable.  Plain error directs that this erroneous 
application of the carryover provision be reversed.  Hence, the 10 percent reduction 
was not justified, and I would therefore reverse the decision of the Board of Tax 
Appeals. 
_________________ 
Sleggs, Danzinger & Gill Co., L.P.A., and Todd W. Sleggs, for appellee. 
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Reno J. 
Oradini Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellants. 
_________________