Case Name: Board of Education of Worthington City School District, Appellee, v. Board of Revision of Franklin County et al.; Ameritech Corporation, Appellant; Mirge Corporation, d.b.a. Electrical Mechanics, Appellant, v. Hamilton County Board of Revision et al., Appellees; Bissett Steel Company, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision et al., Appellees; Cleveland Heights/University Heights Board of Education, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision et al., Appellees. (Two Appeals.)
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1999-03-31
Citations: 85 Ohio St. 3d 156
Docket Number: Nos. 97-1880, 97-2423, 98-704, 98-758 and 98-984
Parties: Board of Education of Worthington City School District, Appellee, v. Board of Revision of Franklin County et al.; Ameritech Corporation, Appellant. Mirge Corporation, d.b.a. Electrical Mechanics, Appellant, v. Hamilton County Board of Revision et al., Appellees. Bissett Steel Company, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision et al., Appellees. Cleveland Heights/University Heights Board of Education, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision et al., Appellees. (Two Appeals.)
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Sherck and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 85
Pages: 156–165

Head Matter:
Board of Education of Worthington City School District, Appellee, v. Board of Revision of Franklin County et al.; Ameritech Corporation, Appellant. Mirge Corporation, d.b.a. Electrical Mechanics, Appellant, v. Hamilton County Board of Revision et al., Appellees. Bissett Steel Company, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision et al., Appellees. Cleveland Heights/University Heights Board of Education, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision et al., Appellees. (Two Appeals.)
[Cite as Worthington City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 156.]
(Nos. 97-1880, 97-2423, 98-704, 98-758 and 98-984
Submitted January 13, 1999
Decided March 31, 1999.)
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Charles F. Glander, Jerry O. Allen, Mark A. Engel, Mary L. Robins and Mark A. Hamilton, for appellee Board of Education of Worthington City School District in case No. 97-1880.
Treneff & Williams and Craig P. Treneff; Nicola, Gudbranson & Cooper and Matthew T. Fitzsimmons; Dean H. Bilton and John M. Brannigan, pro hac vice, for appellant Ameritech Corporation in case No. 97-1880.
Elaine, Wiley, Hoffmann & Minutólo and Franklin A Elaine, Jr., for appellant Mirge Corporation in case No. 97-2423.
Michael E Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Hamilton County Auditor in case No. 97-2423.
Wood & Lamping, L.L.P., and David C. DiMuzio, for appellee Cincinnati School District Board of Education in case No. 97-2423.
Arter & Hadden and Earen H. Bauemschmidt, for appellant Bissett Steel Company in case No. 98-704.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy J. Eollin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Cuyahoga County Board of Revision and Cuyahoga County Auditor in case No. 98-704.
Eolick & Eondzer, Daniel J. Eolick and John P. Desimone, for appellant Cleveland Heights/University Heights Board of Education in case Nos. 98-758 and 98-984.
Eelley, McCann & Livingstone, L.L.P., Fred J. Livingstone and Robert A. Brindza, urging reversal for amicus curiae Mayfield City School District Board of Education in case Nos. 98-758 and 98-984.

Opinion:
Douglas, J.
In Sharon Village, 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932, syllabus, we held that "[t]he preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision on behalf of a taxpayer constitute the practice of law." Thus, an attorney, or the owner of the property, must prepare and file the complaint. Additionally, in Union Savings Assn., 23 Ohio St.2d 60, 62, 52 O.O.2d 329, 330, 262 N.E.2d 558, 559, this court observed that "[a] corporation is an artificial person, created by the General Assembly and deriving its power, authority and capacity from the statutes." We held that "[a] corporation cannot maintain litigation in propria persona, or appear in court through an officer of the corporation or an appointed agent not admitted to the practice of law." Id. at syllabus.
I
In case No. 97-1880, Treneff, an attorney, prepared and filed or caused to be filed the complaint at issue. This satisfies the requirements of Sharon Village. The fact that Ameritech Corporation's property tax manager, Gregory A. Stein, reviewed and signed the prepared complaint is not fatal. Stein simply reviewed the prepared complaint to verify the accuracy of the information contained therein, and he signed the complaint for that same purpose at the direction of Treneff. Stein did not engage in the practice of law. Accordingly, we find that the Franklin County Board of Revision had jurisdiction to consider the complaint by "Ameritech," a registered trade name under which Ohio Bell, the property owner, may "commence an action," R.C. 1329.10(B), since the complaint was prepared and filed by an attorney on Ohio Bell's behalf. Therefore, the decision of the BTA in case No. 97-1880 is reversed.
II
In case No. 97-2423, Mirge Corporation's vice president, Walter Higginbothan, prepared, signed, .and filed the complaint on the assessment of the real property owned by the corporation. Higginbothan is not a lawyer and he therefore engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in having prepared and filed the complaint on behalf of the corporation. The fact that he was a corporate officer does not entitle him to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate under this court's decision in Sharon Village. See, also, generally, Union Savings Assn. Accordingly, the decision of the BTA in case No. 97-2423 is affirmed.
Ill
In case No. 98-704, the president of the Bissett Steel Company, Barbara Bissett, prepared and filed the complaint on the assessment of real property owned by the corporation. Bissett is not a lawyer and she is not the owner of the subject property. She engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in having prepared and filed the complaint at issue. Sharon Village. See, also, Union Savings Assn. The fact that she was a corporate officer does not entitle her to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Accordingly, the BTA's decision in case No. 98-704 to remand the matter to the board of revision for dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
IV
The Cleveland Heights/University Heights Board of Education is a body "politic and corporate" and, as such, is "capable of suing and being sued." R.C. 3313.17. It is a quasi-corporation and is amenable to the rules governing litigants. In case Nos. 98-758 and 98-984, the school board's treasurer, Robert Burmeister, prepared, signed, and filed with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision several counter-complaints on behalf of the school board. Burmeister is not a lawyer. Burmeister therefore engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in having prepared and filed the complaints on behalf of the school board. The school board should have engaged an attorney for that purpose. See, generally, Sharon Village and Union Savings Assn. The school board's arguments to the contrary are not well taken. The decision of the BTA in case Nos. 98-758 and 98-984 is affirmed.
Decision in case No. 97-1880 reversed;
Decision in case No. 97-2423 affirmed;
Decision in case No. 98-704 affirmed;
Decision in case Nos. 98-758 and 98-984 affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sherck and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., would reverse the decisions in 97-1880, 97-2423 and 98-704, and affirm the decision in 98-758 and 98-984.
Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
James R. Sherck, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.