OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 

 **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING **** 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

Gammarino, Appellee, v. Hamilton County Board of Revision; 

Rhodes, Auditor, Appellant. 

[Cite as Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision 

(1994), Ohio St.3d .] 

Taxation -- Real property valuation -- Complaint filed with 

 board of revision -- R.C. 5715.19(A)(2), applied. 

 (No. 93-2272 -- Submitted September 9, 1994 -- Decided 

December 30, 1994.) 

 Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 92-B-1402. 

 Appellee, Al Gammarino, objected to the valuation of 

certain real property as determined by the Auditor of Hamilton 

County for tax year 1990 and filed a complaint with the 

Hamilton County Board of Revision. The board dismissed the 

complaint for lack of standing and Gammarino appealed to the 

Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA"). That appeal was dismissed 

because Gammarino failed to file a timely notice of appeal. 

Tax year 1990 was the first year of a triennium. 

 For tax year 1991 Gammarino filed the instant complaint 

with the board of revision, again challenging the valuation of 

the same parcel. The board dismissed the complaint for lack of 

prosecution, because Gammarino failed to appear for the board 

of revision hearing despite having received notice of the 

hearing. Again, Gammarino appealed to the BTA. 

 At the BTA hearing, the auditor moved to dismiss the 

appeal under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2), asserting that the valuation 

fixed for the first year of the triennum applied to subsequent 

years. The auditor contended also that the appeal should be 

dismissed because Gammarino had failed to appear at the board 

of revision hearing or otherwise participate before the board 

of revision. 

 The BTA denied the auditor's motion, finding that the 

board of revision lacked the statutory authority to dismiss the 

complaint and was required by R.C. 5715.19 to determine the 

value of the subject property. The BTA reinstated Gammarino's 

complaint and remanded the cause to the board of revision for a 
determination of value. 

 The cause is now before this court on appeal as of right. 

 

 Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney , 

and Thomas J. Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for 

appellant. 

 Per Curiam. The decision of the BTA is unreasonable and 

unlawful and it is reversed. 

 R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) prohibits a person from filing a 

complaint as to the valuation of property if the person "filed 

a complaint against the valuation * * * for any prior tax year 

in the same interim period, unless the person * * * alleges 

that the valuation * * * should be changed due to one or more 

of the following circumstances that occurred after the tax lien 

date for the tax year for which the prior complaint was filed 

and that the circumstances were not taken into consideration 

with respect to the prior complaint: 

 "(a) The property was sold in an arm's length transaction 

* * *; 

 "(b) The property lost value due to some casualty; 

 "(c) Substantial improvement was added to the property; 

 "(d) An increase or decrease of at least fifteen per cent 

in the property's occupancy has had a substantial economic 

impact on the property." 

 R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) further states: "'interim period' 

means, for each county, the tax year to which section 5715.24 

of the Revised Code applies and each subsequent tax year until 

the tax year in which that section applies again." 

 R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) clearly provides that only one 

complaint can be filed during each interim period absent any 

showing of a change in circumstances as described in R.C. 

5715.19(A)(2)(a) through (d). Gammarino never disputed that he 

had failed two complaints within the same interim period, and 

in his second complaint, he failed to assert the applicability 

of any of the circumstances enumerated in R.C. 5715.19(A)(2)(a) 

through (d). 

 Therefore, the BTA erred in failing to grant the auditor's 

motion to dismiss Gammarino's appeal on the basis that a 

complaint for the first year of the same triennium had already 

been filed. 

 The decision of the BTA refusing to dismiss the complaint 

and requiring the board of revision to make a determination as 

to the value of the subject property is unreasonable and 

unlawful and it is reversed. 

 Decision reversed. 

 Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. 

Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.