Title: King Dev. Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

KING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. FRANKLIN COUNTY 
1 
BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
2 
CHATTERTON CLUB, L.P. APPELLANT, V. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION 
3 
ET AL., APPELLEES. 
4 
C.O.A. HOUSING, INC., APPELLANT, V. VAN WERT COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION 
5 
ET AL., APPELLEES. 
6 
[Cite as King Dev. Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), ___ Ohio 
7 
St.3d ___.] 
8 
Unauthorized practice of law -- Preparation and filing of a complaint with a 
9 
board of revision constitute the practice of law. 
10 
 
(Nos. 96-541, 96-542 and 96-545 -- Submitted April 1, 1997 -- 
11 
Decided May 21, 1997.) 
12 
 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 93-T-28, 93-T-29, 93-T-
13 
49, 93-T-50, 93-T-51 and 93-T-52, in case No. 96-541. 
14 
 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 93-A-172, in case No. 
15 
96-542. 
16 
 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 94-P-759, in case No. 
17 
96-545. 
18 
 
2
__________ 
1 
 
Todd W. Sleggs, for appellants King Development Co., Crofton 
2 
Partners I, Crofton Partners II, Chatterton Club, L.P., and C.O.A. Housing, 
3 
Inc. 
4 
 
James R. Gorry, Assistant County Prosecutor, for appellees Franklin 
5 
County Board of Revision and Franklin County Auditor and Van Wert 
6 
County Board of Revision and Van Wert Auditor. 
7 
 
Teaford, Rich, Coffman & Wheeler, Jeffrey A. Rich and Karol Cassell 
8 
Fox, for appellees Board of Education of the Reynoldsburg City School 
9 
District Board of Education and the Groveport Madison Local School 
10 
District Board of Education. 
11 
__________ 
12 
 
Sua sponte, the causes are consolidated.  The orders of the Board of 
13 
Tax Appeals are affirmed on the authority of Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking 
14 
Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___, decided 
15 
today. 
16 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
17 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
18