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

Molly Co. Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4070.] 

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-4070

MOLLY COMPANY, LTD., N.K.A. MOLLY COMPANY, L.L.C., APPELLANT, v.

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. 

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

may be cited as Molly Co. Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion 

No. 2018-Ohio-4070.] 

Real-property valuation—R.C. 5715.19(D) does not authorize dismissal of a 

continuing complaint for lack of timeliness—Board of Tax Appeals’ 

decision reversed, and cause remanded. 

(No. 2016-0290—Submitted September 11, 2018—Decided October 11, 2018.) 

APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2015-1157. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} The property at issue in this case was the subject of a 2011 valuation 

complaint filed by the owner, appellant, Molly Company Ltd., now known as Molly 

Company, L.L.C. Appellee Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (“BOR”) issued its 

decision on the 2011 complaint more than 90 days after it was filed, and the matter 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

was not finally resolved until January 2014, after an appeal to the Board of Tax 

Appeals (“BTA”). “Pursuant to R.C. 5715.19(D), if a taxpayer already has a 

complaint under review regarding a particular parcel and a board of revision does not 

determine that complaint within 90 days, the taxpayer need not file complaints in 

succeeding years regarding that same parcel as long as the original complaint is 

unresolved.” MDM Holdings, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 152 Ohio St.3d 

555, 2018-Ohio-541, 99 N.E.3d 351, ¶ 3. In February 2015, pursuant to R.C. 

5715.19(D), Molly Company sought to invoke the BOR’s continuing-complaint 

jurisdiction for tax year 2012. The BOR denied Molly Company’s request for a 

hearing for tax year 2012, stating that Molly Company had failed to invoke the 

BOR’s continuing-complaint jurisdiction because it did not request a hearing within 

30 days after the tax-year-2011 complaint was finally determined. The BTA affirmed 

the BOR’s refusal to hear the case, although it held that Molly Company had had 

until the end of 2014 to request a hearing. 

{¶ 2} Molly Company appeals to this court, arguing that R.C. 5715.19(D) 

does not impose the deadlines applied by the BOR and the BTA. We addressed this 

issue earlier this year in Life Path Partners, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 

152 Ohio St.3d 238, 2018-Ohio-230, 94 N.E.3d 565. We held that “nothing in [R.C. 

5715.19(D)] authorizes the BOR to dismiss a continuing complaint for lack of 

timeliness.” Id. at ¶ 10. See also MDM Holdings (applying Life Path); Novita Indus., 

L.L.C. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision, 153 Ohio St.3d 57, 2018-Ohio-2023, 100 

N.E.3d 387, ¶ 11-13 (same). Thus, the BTA’s decision affirming the BOR’s 

dismissal of Molly Company’s continuing complaint as untimely was unreasonable 

and unlawful. See R.C. 5717.04. 

{¶ 3} Because the BOR had continuing-complaint jurisdiction under R.C. 

5715.19(D), we reverse the BTA’s decision and remand the cause to the BOR for 

a determination of the subject property’s tax-year-2012 value. 

Decision reversed 
January Term, 2018 

3

and cause remanded. 

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

and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Karen H. Bauernschmidt, Nicholas 

Ray, and Heather M. Lutz, for appellant. 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

Saundra Curtis-Patrick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Cuyahoga 

County Board of Revision and Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer. 

_________________