Court Opinion

ID: 9964269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 16:08:51.27149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:16.462266
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Marysville Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2024-Ohio-
1629.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                UNION COUNTY

MARYSVILLE EXEMPTED VILLAGE
SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION,                                         CASE NO. 14-23-31

         APPELLANT,

    v.

UNION COUNTY BOARD OF                                               OPINION
REVISION, ET AL.,

         APPELLEES.

MARYSVILLE EXEMPTED VILLAGE
SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION,                                         CASE NO. 14-23-32

         APPELLANT,

    v.

UNION COUNTY BOARD OF                                               OPINION
REVISION, ET AL.,

         APPELLEES.

                  Appeals from Union County Common Pleas Court
                      Trial Court Nos. 22CV0192, 22CV0219

                                     Judgments Affirmed

                              Date of Decision: April 29, 2024
Case No. 14-23-31, 32

APPEARANCES:

       Karol C. Fox and Kelley A. Gorry for Appellant

       Sophia R. Holley for Appellee Michaela Ackerman, Trustee
       Craig T. Albers for Appellee Seva Senior Living, LLC

WALDICK, J.

       {¶1} In these consolidated appeals, the appellant, Marysville Exempted

Village Schools Board of Education (“school board”), appeals the judgments

entered in two cases in the Union County Court of Common Pleas, wherein the trial

court dismissed the school board’s appeals from decisions of the Union County

Board of Revision. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

                      Procedural History and Relevant Facts

       {¶2} These cases originated in March of 2022, when the school board filed

two separate valuation complaints for the 2021 tax year with the Union County

Board of Revision. In one of those complaints, the school board sought an increase

in the valuation of real property owned by Seva Senior Living, LLC and, in the other

complaint, the school board sought an increase in the value of real property owned

by Michaela Ackerman, Trustee (“property owners”), who are the appellees herein.

Both complaints were based upon recent sale prices of the two properties at issue.

       {¶3} The Union County Board of Revision held separate hearings on the

complaints. On September 26, 2022, the board of revision issued a decision with

regard to the Seva property, ruling that the valuation of the property should be

                                        -2-
Case No. 14-23-31, 32

increased but not to the amount sought by the school board. On November 28, 2022,

the board of revision issued a decision with regard to the Ackerman property, ruling

that no change would be made in the valuation of that property for the tax year in

question.

       {¶4} The school board then appealed both decisions of the board of revision

to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) pursuant to R.C. 5717.01, filing a notice of

appeal with the BTA on November 3, 2022 in the Seva case and filing a notice of

appeal with the BTA on December 15, 2022 in the Ackerman case. The appeals

filed with the Board of Tax Appeals were subsequently stayed by the BTA pending

a decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Marysville Exempted Village Schools

Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision, Ohio Supreme Court No. 2023-0964, 171

Ohio St.3d 1475, 2023-Ohio-3789, in which a school board’s right to appeal certain

decisions of a board of revision to the BTA pursuant to R.C. 5717.01 is at issue.

       {¶5} After the appeal of the board of revision decision was filed with the

BTA in each case at issue here, the school board then also filed appeals in the Union

County Court of Common Pleas of those same board of revision decisions.

Specifically, in the Seva case, the school board filed an appeal in the common pleas

court on November 4, 2022 (trial court case number 22-CV-0192), and in the

Ackerman case, the school board filed an appeal in the common pleas court on

December 22, 2022 (trial court case number 22-CV-0219). In the notices of appeal

                                         -3-
Case No. 14-23-31, 32

filed in the Union County Court of Common Pleas, the school board asserted that it

was appealing to the trial court as of right, pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.

       {¶6} In both of those common pleas court appeals, the property owners

subsequently filed motions to dismiss the appeals, arguing that the school board has

no standing to file appeals of board of revision decisions in the common pleas court

and that the common pleas court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeals.

       {¶7} On August 17, 2023, the trial court filed a judgment entry in each case,

dismissing the appeal.

       {¶8} On September 8, 2023, the school board separately appealed the

dismissal of the common pleas court appeals to this Court, with the Seva case being

appellate case number 14-23-32 and the Ackerman case being appellate case

number 14-23-31. By subsequent order of this Court, those two appeals were

consolidated for purposes of briefing and argument.

       {¶9} In both appeals pending before this Court, the school board raises three

assignments of error, which we shall collectively address.

                            First Assignment of Error

       The Union County Common Pleas Court erred in dismissing the
       board of education’s appeals pursuant to R.C. 5717.05 when the
       board of education did not appeal pursuant to that statute.

                           Second Assignment of Error

       The Union County Common Pleas Court erred in impliedly
       holding that R.C. 5717.05 in any way prohibited the board of
       education’s appeals pursuant to R.C. 2506.01 because the

                                         -4-
Case No. 14-23-31, 32

       Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an appeal pursuant to
       R.C. 2506.01 is available unless directly prohibited by another
       statute.

                            Third Assignment of Error

       The Union County Common Pleas Court erred in failing to
       recognize the board of education’s statutory standing to appeal
       pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.

                                       Analysis

       {¶10} In the three assignments of error, the school board makes various

arguments as to why the trial court erred in dismissing the appeals filed in that court,

all based on the school board’s assertion that it has standing to bring those appeals

pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.

       {¶11} R.C. 2506.01 governs appeals from decisions of agencies of political

subdivisions, and provides:

       (A) Except as otherwise provided in sections 2506.05 to 2506.08 of
       the Revised Code, and except as modified by this section and
       sections 2506.02 to 2506.04 of the Revised Code, every final order,
       adjudication, or decision of any officer, tribunal, authority, board,
       bureau, commission, department, or other division of any political
       subdivision of the state may be reviewed by the court of common
       pleas of the county in which the principal office of the political
       subdivision is located as provided in Chapter 2505. of the Revised
       Code.

       (B) The appeal provided in this section is in addition to any other
       remedy of appeal provided by law.

       (C) As used in this chapter, “final order, adjudication, or decision”
       means an order, adjudication, or decision that determines rights,
       duties, privileges, benefits, or legal relationships of a person, but does
       not include any order, adjudication, or decision from which an appeal

                                          -5-
Case No. 14-23-31, 32

       is granted by rule, ordinance, or statute to a higher administrative
       authority if a right to a hearing on such appeal is provided, or any
       order, adjudication, or decision that is issued preliminary to or as a
       result of a criminal proceeding.

       {¶12} However, we need not reach the merits of the arguments made by the

school board, as the board concedes that no appeal is available to it in these cases

pursuant to R.C. 2506.01 if R.C. 5717.01 provides a valid statutory right to the

school board to appeal to the BTA, as R.C. 2506.01(C) provides that an appeal is

not available pursuant to that section if “an appeal is granted by * * * statute to a

higher administrative authority if a right to a hearing on such appeal is provided[.]”

       {¶13} In Marysville Exempted Village Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd.

of Revision, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-23-03, 2023-Ohio-2020, this Court addressed

the specific question of whether R.C. 5717.01 provides a statutory right to a school

board to appeal to the BTA in a case such as these, where a valuation complaint was

filed with a county board of revision prior to the July 21, 2022 effective date of an

amendment to R.C. 5717.05 that eliminated the right of school boards to appeal

board of revision decisions to the BTA in cases involving real property not owned

or leased by the school board. In that case, we held that the amendment to R.C.

5717.01 is not applicable to cases where, as in the cases here, the valuation

complaint was filed with the board of revision prior to the July 21, 2022 effective

date of the amendment to R.C. 5717.01. Id., at ¶ 37.

                                         -6-
Case No. 14-23-31, 32

       {¶14} Accordingly, we find our decision in Marysville Exempted Village

Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision, supra, to be dispositive of the

appeals before us and, on the basis of that decision and R.C. 2506.01(C), affirm the

judgments of dismissal entered in the trial court.

       The three assignments of error are overruled.

                                     Conclusion

       {¶15} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellants in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgments of the Union County Court of Common Pleas

are affirmed.

                                                              Judgments Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J., and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

/tmm

                                         -7-