[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Novita Industries, L.L.C. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2023.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-2023

NOVITA INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. LORAIN 

COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES; LORAIN CITY SCHOOL 

DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Novita Industries, L.L.C. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip 

Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2023.] 

Taxation—Real-property valuation—R.C. 5715.19(D)—Requirement that 

proposed value be set forth applies to filing original complaints but not to 

invoking continuing-complaint jurisdiction of a county board of revision—

Property owner properly invoked continuing-complaint jurisdiction of 

board of revision over owner’s challenge to county auditor’s valuation of 

subject property for tax year 2014—Board of Tax Appeals’ decision 

reversed to extent it refused to exercise jurisdiction over property’s 2014 

value—Board of Tax Appeals ordered to assign aggregate value of 

$750,000 to parcels at issues for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014, and to 

allocate that value to the individual parcels. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

(No. 2015-2073—Submitted April 10, 2018—Decided May 30, 2018.) 

APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2014-4243 and 2014-4424. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} In this property-tax appeal, we address the “continuing-complaint” 

jurisdiction of appellee Lorain County Board of Revision (“BOR”) over the value 

of a property for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014. The taxpayer and property owner, 

appellant and cross-appellee, Novita Industries, L.L.C., sought a reduction from the 

value determined by the Lorain County auditor for those three years by asserting a 

continuing complaint. Novita predicated its claim on its originally filed complaint, 

which had challenged the property valuation for tax year 2009; that complaint was 

finally determined in 2014, and Novita’s continuing complaint sought to apply the 

same value determined in that case to 2012, 2013, and 2014. 

{¶ 2} In its appeal to this court, Novita challenges the decision of the Board 

of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) that the BOR lacked continuing-complaint jurisdiction 

over tax year 2014. On cross-appeal, appellee and cross-appellant, Lorain City 

School District Board of Education (“BOE”), raises a more fundamental challenge 

by arguing that Novita failed to invoke the BOR’s continuing complaint jurisdiction 

for any of the tax years at issue. Namely, the BOE contends that Novita failed to 

state its opinion of the property value on the form it submitted in 2014 and argues 

that the alleged omission deprived the BOR of continuing-complaint jurisdiction 

over any of the three years. 

{¶ 3} Because we conclude that the BOR had continuing-complaint 

jurisdiction to determine the property’s value for all three years, we reject the 

BOE’s cross-appeal and we reverse the BTA’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction over 

tax year 2014. We also order a modification to correct a clerical error: we direct 

that the parcels at issue be assigned an aggregate value of $750,000 for 2012, 2013, 
January Term, 2018 

3

and 2014. And we remand the cause for an allocation of the aggregate value to the 

individual parcels. 

I. Background 

{¶ 4} Novita purchased the property at issue, a warehouse/industrial plant, 

in June 2009 for $750,000. Novita filed a decrease complaint for tax year 2009 

seeking a reduction of value to that sale price, $750,000. BTA No. 2010-3585, 

2014 Ohio Tax LEXIS 2409 (Apr. 15, 2014). The BOR retained the auditor’s 

valuation and Novita appealed to the BTA, which ultimately issued a decision on 

April 15, 2014, that adopted the sale price as the property value for tax year 2009. 

{¶ 5} 2012 was a reappraisal year in Lorain County, and the auditor 

assigned an aggregate value of $1,647,310 to the parcels at issue for that year. On 

July 14, 2014, Novita initiated the present proceedings by filing a DTE Form 1, the 

officially prescribed form for original complaints under R.C. 5715.19(A); the form 

explicitly placed tax years 2012 and 2013 at issue. Novita attached to the DTE 

Form 1 the BTA’s April 15, 2014 decision, which it referred to on the face of the 

complaint form; the attachment served both as a list of the parcels at issue and as 

the basis for Novita’s claim for reduction. The BOE filed a countercomplaint form 

seeking retention of the auditor’s valuation. 

{¶ 6} The BOR held a hearing at which the parties and the BOR members 

extensively discussed whether the 2009 value of $750,000 should be carried over 

into the new triennial period. In its prehearing brief to the BOR, Novita specifically 

requested that the value of $750,000 be carried forward to tax years 2012, 2013, 

and 2014. The BOR concluded that the law did not permit the carryover, and it 

therefore retained the auditor’s valuation. 

{¶ 7} On appeal, the BTA held a hearing at which Novita presented the 

testimony and appraisal report of Charles G. Snyder, a member of the Appraisal 

Institute, plus the testimony of an officer of Novita. On the basis of his incomecapitalization and sales-comparison approaches, Snyder opined a value of $750,000 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

as of January 1, 2012—an opinion of value that was equal to the 2009 sale price. 

Snyder also criticized the cost-approach valuation set forth on the property-record 

card, which expressed a “current value” of $1,557,760. 

{¶ 8} The BTA adopted Snyder’s valuation for 2012 and 2013 but ruled that 

it lacked jurisdiction to determine the value for tax year 2014. Novita has appealed 

the BTA’s jurisdictional ruling regarding 2014, and the BOE has cross-appealed, 

contending that the BOR lacked jurisdiction to determine the property’s value for 

any of the three years. 

II. Analysis 

{¶ 9} R.C. 5715.19(D) provides as follows: 

If a complaint filed under this section for the current year is not 

determined by the board within the time prescribed for such 

determination [i.e., 90 days from the filing of the complaint or 

countercomplaint, see R.C. 5715.19(C)], the complaint and any 

proceedings in relation thereto shall be continued by the board as a 

valid complaint for any ensuing year until such complaint is finally 

determined by the board or upon any appeal from a decision of the 

board. In such case, the original complaint shall continue in effect 

without further filing by the original taxpayer, the original 

taxpayer’s assignee, or any other person or entity authorized to file 

a complaint under this section. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 10} Because a jurisdictional ruling typically calls into question the 

proper construction of the statute in relation to the facts of the case, it raises 

primarily a question of law that we must consider de novo. See Diley Ridge Med. 

Ctr. v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Revision, 141 Ohio St.3d 149, 2014-Ohio-5030, 22 
January Term, 2018 

5

N.E.3d 1072, ¶ 10. Here, the BTA found that “[f]or the BOR to have jurisdiction 

over tax year 2014, a proper complaint needed to be filed for that tax year after 

creation of the tax duplicate for that year and [before] March 31 of the following 

year. * * * As no complaint was filed, the BOR lacked jurisdiction over 2014.”

 

BTA Nos. 2014-4243 and 2014-4424, 2015 Ohio Tax LEXIS 4161, *8 (Nov. 30, 

2015). There are two elements to this ruling: the first concerns the form Novita 

used to assert its continuing complaint and the other concerns the timing of Novita’s 

submission. 

{¶ 11} Our recent decision in Life Path Partners, Ltd v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. 

of Revision, 152 Ohio St.3d 238, 2018-Ohio-230, 94 N.E.3d 565, establishes two 

principles that are pertinent here. First, we acknowledged that “submitting a 

request letter * * * is enough to invoke the [board of revision’s continuingcomplaint] jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶ 9. Second, we held that “nothing in [R.C. 

5715.19(D)] authorizes [a board of revision] to dismiss a continuing complaint for 

lack of timeliness.” Id. at ¶ 10. 

{¶ 12} Relying on these recently articulated guidelines, we reject both 

elements of the BTA’s jurisdictional ruling in this case. Namely, there was no 

requirement that Novita file a complaint that was “proper” in form in order to assert 

its continuing complaint for tax year 2014, because any form of written submission 

suffices to invoke a board of revision’s continuing-complaint jurisdiction under Life 

Path Partners. Nor was there any limitation on the time for asserting Novita’s 

continuing complaint because, as we held in Life Path Partners, the statute imposes 

no such limitation. 

{¶ 13} To be sure, the time limit the BTA imposed in this matter differs 

from that addressed in Life Path Partners. In that case, the BTA determined that 

the taxpayer asserted its continuing complaint too late. Here, the BTA found that 

as to tax year 2014, the continuing complaint was asserted too early, inasmuch as 

the auditor’s assessment for that year was not yet complete. We conclude, however, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

that this is a distinction that is not jurisdictionally significant. As in Life Path 

Partners, “nothing in [R.C. 5715.19(D)] authorizes the BOR to dismiss a 

continuing complaint for lack of timeliness.” Life Path Partners at ¶ 10. 

{¶ 14} Turning to the first proposition of law asserted in the BOE’s crossappeal, we note that the BOE (1) asserts that Novita failed to request a specific 

value in its July 2014 submission to the BOR and (2) argues that the alleged 

omission deprived the BOR of jurisdiction to determine the property’s value for 

any of the three tax years at issue. We reject both the factual premise and the legal 

argument. 

{¶ 15} First, the factual premise is false because the complaint form filed 

by Novita specifically set forth, as the justification for changing the value, the 

“[r]uling from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals under Case No. 2010-3585 Entered 

4/15/2014.” And Novita attached the BTA decision it referred to, which itself sets 

forth the redetermined values of the parcels at issue. 

{¶ 16} When it filed its complaint form, Novita relied on the attached BTA 

decision both to identify the parcels and to specify the values that should be 

assigned to them. Accordingly, the BOE’s jurisdictional challenge fails because 

Novita did assert the value sought for the property when it incorporated the BTA’s 

decision by reference. 

{¶ 17} Second, as a matter of law, the requirement that a proposed value be 

set forth applies to filing original complaints but not to invoking a board of 

revision’s jurisdiction over a continuing complaint. R.C. 5715.19(D) plainly states 

that when continuing-complaint jurisdiction has been triggered, the original 

complaint “shall continue in effect without further filing” of any kind at all. Accord

AERC Saw Mill Village, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 127 Ohio St.3d 44, 

2010-Ohio-4468, 936 N.E.2d 472, ¶ 35 (R.C. 5715.19(D) “permits continued 

jurisdiction without further filing”). Thus, no particular formal requirements 

constrain the party who asserts a continuing complaint; the litigant may rely on any 
January Term, 2018 

7

form of submission that adequately brings its intention to do so to the board of 

revision’s attention. 

{¶ 18} We have held that a procedural error or omission ordinarily does not 

affect jurisdiction in a tax proceeding unless the error or omission constitutes a 

violation of a requirement set forth in the applicable statutes. Groveport Madison 

Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 137 Ohio St.3d 266, 

2013-Ohio-4627, 998 N.E.2d 1132, ¶ 16, 18, 23. Because R.C. 5715.19(D) 

specifies no formal requirements for asserting a continuing complaint, there are no 

jurisdictional prerequisites of a formal nature. 

{¶ 19} Finally, the parties are in agreement regarding the second 

proposition of law asserted in the BOE’s cross-appeal: the BTA made a numerical 

error that did not fully reflect its decision to adopt $750,000 as the aggregate value 

of all the parcels constituting the property at issue. Specifically, the BTA assigned 

values to the component parcels that add up to $749,190 rather than $750,000. 

{¶ 20} R.C. 5717.04 authorizes us to “modify [the BTA’s decision] and 

enter final judgment in accordance with such modification.” Because the issue has 

been properly preserved and raised and because the parties agree on its proper 

resolution, we order modification of the BTA’s decision to reflect an aggregate 

property value of $750,000 for the parcels at issue. On remand, the BTA shall 

determine a proper allocation of the aggregate value among the parcels. 

III. Conclusion 

{¶ 21} For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the BTA’s decision to the 

extent that it refused to exercise jurisdiction over the subject property’s value for 

tax year 2014 and we hold that the BOR had jurisdiction to determine the property’s 

value for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014. We also modify the BTA’s decision by 

ordering that an aggregate value of $750,000 be assigned to the parcels at issue for 

tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014. Finally, we remand the cause to the BTA for an 

allocation of the aggregate value to the individual parcels. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE,

and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

 Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh, and Thomas W. Connors, for 

appellant and cross-appellee. 

 Kolick & Kondzer, Thomas A. Kondzer, and Joseph A. Volpe, for appellee 

and cross-appellant. 

_________________