Title: Shaper v. Tracy

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Shaper, Appellant, v. Tracy, Tax Commr., Appellee. 
1 
[Cite as Shaper v. Tracy (1996), ______ Ohio St.3d ______.] 
2 
Civil procedure -- Judgments -- Valid, final judgment rendered upon 
3 
the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim 
4 
arising out of the transaction that was the subject matter of the 
5 
previous action. 
6 
 
(No. 95-389 -- Submitted April 30, 1996 -- Decided August 7, 1996.) 
7 
 
Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 93-X-1032. 
8 
 
This is the second of two actions which Serene G. Shaper has 
9 
appealed to this court.  This appeal results from the Board of Tax Appeals’ 
10 
(“BTA’s”) denial of Shaper’s claims for personal income tax refunds.   
11 
 
Prior to filing her refund claims with the Tax Commissioner, Shaper 
12 
filed a declaratory judgment action with the Cuyahoga County Common 
13 
Pleas Court, which was later transferred to the Franklin County Common 
14 
Pleas Court.  The Franklin County court denied Shaper’s motion for 
15 
summary judgment.  Shaper appealed to the Franklin County Court of 
16 
Appeals, which affirmed the common pleas court.  Shaper v. Tracy (1994), 
17 
97 Ohio App.3d 760, 647 N.E.2d 550.  A discretionary appeal and cross-
18 
appeal to this court were not allowed.  Shaper v. Tracy (1995), 71 Ohio 
19 
 
2
St.3d 1477, 647 N.E.2d 1257.  Shaper subsequently filed a petition for a 
1 
writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was denied 
2 
on October 2, 1995.  Shaper v. Tracy (1995), 516 U.S. __, 116 S.Ct. 274, 
3 
133 L.Ed.2d 195. 
4 
 
At the same time Shaper filed her notice of appeal in the instant case, 
5 
she also filed a motion to consolidate this appeal with her then pending 
6 
appeal of the declaratory judgment action.  In her motion to consolidate 
7 
Shaper stated, “[b]oth appeals involve the same legal issues” and “the same 
8 
issues are raised in both appeals * * *.”  The tax years at issue in both 
9 
appeals are the same.   
10 
 
The commissioner filed a motion to dismiss or affirm the BTA’s 
11 
decision based upon res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.  We denied the 
12 
commissioner’s motion, stating that res judicata raises merit questions that 
13 
are to be resolved in a merit decision.  Shaper v. Tracy (1995), 73 Ohio 
14 
St.3d 1211, 654 N.E.2d 1268. 
15 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.   
16 
 
3
 
Krislov & Associates, Ltd. and Clinton A. Krislov; Moses Krislov Co., 
1 
L.P.A., and Moses Krislov; Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff and 
2 
Leon Friedberg, pro hac vice,for appellant. 
3 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Lawrence D. Pratt, 
4 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
5 
 
Per Curiam.  The legal issues presented in this case are, by Shaper’s 
6 
own admission, the same legal issues previously litigated by the parties in 
7 
Shaper’s declaratory judgment action.  In Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 
8 
73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus, we held that “[a] valid, final 
9 
judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon 
10 
any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject 
11 
matter of the previous action.”  See, also, Superior’s Brand Meats v. Lindley 
12 
(1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 133, 16 O.O.3d 150, 403 N.E.2d 996. 
13 
 
Litigation of the legal issues raised by Shaper’s refund claims is 
14 
barred by res judicata in the instant case.   
15 
 
The decision of the BTA is affirmed. 
16 
 
 
Decision affirmed. 
17 
 
4
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK 
1 
and SHERCK, JJ., concur. 
2 
 
JAMES R. SHERCK, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for 
3 
STRATTON, J. 
4 
 
5