Title: Leach v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Leach v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 94 Ohio St.3d 170, 2002-Ohio-341.] 
 
 
LEACH, APPELLANT, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Leach v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 170.] 
Taxation — Real property — Appeal of county auditor’s valuation to board of 
revision — Failure of property owner to appear at hearing is proper 
ground for dismissal of complaint — LCL Income Properties v. Rhodes, 
followed. 
(No. 01-291 — Submitted January 9, 2002 — Decided January 30, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2000-M-1049 through 2000-M-
1256. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant David Leach filed multiple complaints with the 
Hamilton County Board of Revision (“BOR”) for tax year 1999.  Leach was 
notified by the BOR of the time and place for the hearings on the complaints; 
however, he never appeared at any of the hearings.  The BOR dismissed Leach’s 
complaints.  Leach filed appeals of the BOR’s dismissals with the Board of Tax 
Appeals (“BTA”).  At the BTA, the BOR filed a motion for sanctions wherein it 
sought affirmance of the BOR’s dismissals and the imposition of attorney fees.  
The BTA granted the motion for dismissal but denied the motion for sanctions.  
Leach appealed here but did not appear at the oral hearing scheduled before this 
court.  This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
In LCL Income Properties v. Rhodes (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 652, 646 
N.E.2d 1108, as in this case, the taxpayer failed to appear at the board of revision 
hearing and the BOR dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute.  In LCL 
Properties, we stated that the board of revision had authority to dismiss the 
complaint.  The taxpayer fails to sustain the burden to prove the value of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
property when he or she fails to attend the hearing before the board of revision.  
Under LCL Properties, the BTA’s affirmance of the BOR’s dismissals was 
reasonable and lawful. 
Decision affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David Leach, pro se. 
 
Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. 
Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Hamilton County Auditor. 
__________________