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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

GAMMARINO ET AL., APPELLEES, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, 
APPELLEE; RHODES, HAMILTON COUNTY AUDITOR, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 32.] 
Taxation — Real property valuation — Complaint filed with county board of 
revision must comply with R.C. 5715.13 — Preparation and filing of 
complaint with county board of revision by individual not authorized to 
practice law in Ohio and not an “agent” constitutes the unauthorized 
practice of law. 
(No. 97-164 — Submitted July 23, 1997 — Decided October 8, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 96-K-280. 
 
Appellee, Al Gammarino, filed a real property valuation complaint with the 
Hamilton County Board of Revision (“BOR”) on March 30, 1995 for tax year 
1994.  The complaint listed the owner of the property as Rex Overstreet and the 
complainant as Billy McPherson.  The complaint listed Gammarino as the 
complainant’s agent; Gammarino signed the complaint, apparently as an agent. 
 
At a hearing before the BOR, inquiry was made into Gammarino’s 
relationship with the property, and with Overstreet and McPherson.  Gammarino 
told the BOR that he was appearing in his capacity as “a Real Estate Broker Agent 
for Mr. McPherson or Mr. Overstreet,” and that he filed the complaint at 
Overstreet’s and McPherson’s request.  Gammarino said he had had a 
principal/agent relationship with Overstreet in past years, but had no current 
relationship.  As to McPherson, Gammarino said he had not represented him as a 
broker.  Gammarino admitted that he did not manage the property or take care of 
the utilities. 
 
The BOR dismissed the complaint for being improperly filed.  In response 
to the dismissal, Gammarino filed an appeal with the Board of Tax Appeals 
 
2
(“BTA”).  At the hearing before the BTA, counsel for the county established that 
Gammarino was not an attorney, did not own the property, did not manage the 
property, and did not rent the property.  Gammarino admitted he had no written 
authorization to file the complaint.  He explained that McPherson owned the 
property before Overstreet purchased it at a judicial sale in 1993.  However, 
because of a problem with the sale, McPherson regained title to the property in 
August 1995.  Gammarino again stated that he filed the complaint because 
Overstreet and McPherson had requested him to do so.  Gammarino stated that he 
had no continuing business relationship with either Overstreet or McPherson.  
Although Gammarino signed the notice of appeal to the BTA as “Al Gammarino 
Trustee/agent,” he admitted no trust existed.  He said he had signed his name as 
trustee because he was acting for Overstreet and McPherson, not because he was 
trustee in a legal sense.  Gammarino said he had no arrangements with McPherson 
to pay him or give him any percentage of any tax savings that might result from 
the filing of the complaint. 
 
The BTA found that, although Gammarino named himself as the appellant 
in the notice of appeal to the BTA, he was not a party to the proceedings before 
the BOR.  Instead, the BTA found Gammarino was merely an “agent” who had 
filed the complaint for other individuals.  The BTA sua sponte substituted 
Overstreet as the real party in interest.  The BTA also found that McPherson had 
no ownership interest in the property that would permit him to file a complaint.  
Finally, the BTA found Gammarino’s explanation “plausible,” and held that the 
underlying complaint was filed on behalf of both McPherson and Overstreet.  
Consequently, the BTA reversed and remanded the matter to the BOR for a 
determination of value. 
 
The Hamilton County Auditor has filed an appeal as of right with this court. 
 
3
__________________ 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. 
Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant raises two primary arguments:  that an unrelated lay 
person may not file and prosecute a complaint before a board of revision, and that 
such representation by a lay person constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. 
 
Appellees have not filed briefs with this court. 
 
Subsequent to the BTA’s decision in this matter on January 3, 1997, we 
decided Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 
479, 678 N.E.2d 932, which involved a real estate valuation complaint filed with a 
board of revision by a nonattorney.  In Sharon Village Ltd., the sole question 
before us was whether a nonlawyer-agent filing complaints with a board of 
revision was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.  After reviewing the 
procedures before a board of revision and exploring some of the ramifications of 
filing a complaint, we interpreted the term “agent” in R.C. 5715.13 to include the 
affected party’s attorney.  Id. at 483, 678 N.E.2d at 936.  We then went on to hold 
that “the preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision on behalf 
of a taxpayer constitute the practice of law.”  Id.  Since the tax agent involved in 
Sharon Village Ltd. was not an attorney, his actions in filing the complaints 
constituted the unauthorized practice of law.  In Sharon Village Ltd. we affirmed 
the BTA’s decision, which held that the complaints filed with the board of 
revision were not “sufficient to repose jurisdiction in the Licking County BOR.”  
Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (Dec. 1, 1995), Board of Tax 
Appeals, No. 94-M-1214, unreported.  We affirmed the dismissal of the appeals. 
 
4
 
The facts of the present case and our decision in Sharon Village Ltd. require 
us to hold that Gammarino was not an “agent” within the meaning of R.C. 5715.13 
for the purpose of filing the complaint in question with the BOR.  Because 
Gammarino was not an agent, his filing of the complaint constituted the 
unauthorized practice of law. 
 
In Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 
235, 67 O.O.2d 296, 298, 313 N.E.2d 14, 16, we held that “full compliance with 
R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13 is necessary before a county board of revision is 
empowered to act on the merits of a claim.”  Therefore, because the complaint 
filed in this matter did not meet the requirements of R.C. 5715.13, it was not an 
effective complaint.  Without an effective complaint, the BOR had nothing to hear 
and determine.  R.C. 5715.01 and 5715.11.  We affirm the BOR’s dismissal of the 
complaint. 
 
Because our decision upholds the BOR’s dismissal of Gammarino’s 
complaint for lack of jurisdiction, we decline to address the remaining arguments 
raised by appellant concerning procedural issues arising subsequent to the BOR’s 
decision. 
 
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, the decision of the BTA 
requiring the BOR to make a determination as to the value of the property is 
unreasonable and unlawful, and it is reversed. 
Decision reversed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.