Court Opinion

ID: 9962560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:11:35.990515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:10.401473
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Lancaster City School Bd. of Edn. v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2024-Ohio-1561.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LANCASTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT                               JUDGES:
BOARD OF EDUCATION                                           Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
                                                             Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
        Plaintiff-Appellant                                  Hon. Andrew J. King, J.

-vs-                                                         Case Nos. 2023 CA 00040, 00041,
                                                             00042
FAIRFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF
REVISION, ET AL.
                                                             OPINION
        Defendants-Appellees

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                                Civil Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                         Pleas, Case Nos. 2023 CV 00388, 00331,
                                                         00330

JUDGMENT:                                               Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                                 April 23, 2024

APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellant                                 For Defendant-Appellee SWE Lancaster, LLC

 MARK H. GILLIS                                          SWE Lancaster, LLC
 KELLEY A. GORRY                                         9754 Old Warson Rd.
 Rich & Gillis Law Group, LLC                            St. Louis, MO 63124
 5747 Perimeter Drive, Suite 150
 Dublin, Ohio 43017

 For Appellees BOR and Auditor                           For Appellee BGB 1781 Countryside
                                                         Lancaster, LLC

 AMY L. BROWN-THOMPSON
 Civil Division Chief                                    ROBERT D. BALLINGER
 Fairfield County Prosecutor’s Office                    SARAH J. SPARKS
 239 W. Main St., Suite 101                              Coolidge Wall Co., L.P. A.
 Lancaster, Ohio 43130                                   33 W. First St., Suite 600
                                                         Dayton, Ohio 45402
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                  2

 For Appellee RSS 2185 Rolling Hills Street, LLC

 CHARLES L. BLUESTONE
 ANDREW J. MERWINE
 Bluestone Law Group, LLC
 141 E. Town St., Suite 100
 Columbus, Ohio 43215

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   Plaintiff-Appellant Lancaster City School District Board of Education

appeals the decision of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas dismissing its

Complaints challenging the 2022 tax value of certain real property.

       {¶2}   Defendants-Appellees are Fairfield County Auditor, Fairfield County Board

of Revision, and the following property owners: RSS 2185 Rolling Hills Street, LLC, BGB

1781 Countryside Lancaster, LLC, and SWE Lancaster, LLC.

                          STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶3}   The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:

       {¶4}   In 2022, Lancaster City School District Board of Education filed numerous

original valuation Complaints with the Fairfield County Board of Revision for tax year

2022, challenging the true value of certain real property and seeking an increase in the

value of properties owned by the Property Owners Appellees herein.

       {¶5}   The Board of Revision did not hold a hearing on the Board of Education's

Complaints and issued decisions dismissing the Board of Education's complaints “due to

lack of subject matter jurisdiction” for noncompliance with R.C. §5715.19(A)(6)(a)(i).

       {¶6}   The Board of Education appealed these decisions to the Fairfield County

Common Pleas Court as an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. §2506.01.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                   3

       {¶7}    Shortly after commencing its appeals to the Common Pleas Court, the

Board of Education moved the court to stay its appeals based on an action pending before

the Board of Tax Authority in a related appeal by a third-party taxpayer complainant, and

a declaratory judgment action pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2721 pending in the Franklin

County Common Pleas Court.

       {¶8}    Appellee Property Owners filed Motions to Dismiss in each case, arguing a

lack of jurisdiction.

       {¶9}    The trial court denied Appellant's motions for a stay and granted the

Property Owners’ motions to dismiss, finding that Appellant lacks statutory standing to file

an appeal with the Common Pleas Court under R.C. §2506.01.

       {¶10} Appellant Lancaster City School District Board of Education filed an appeal

in each case with the following identical assignments of error:

                                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       {¶11} “I. THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN

RELYING SOLELY UPON THE DELAWARE DECISIONS WHEN SUCH DECISIONS

WERE TAINTED WITH LEGAL ERROR.”

       {¶12} “II. THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN

HOLDING THAT R.C. 2506.01 DOES NOT CREATE AN INDEPENDENT RIGHT OF

APPEAL IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE

STATUTE AND LONG-STANDING SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT.

       {¶13} “III. THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT COMMITTED

LEGAL ERROR IN CITING JRB HOLDINGS, HAMER, AND NKANGINIEME AS
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                   4

SUPPORT FOR ITS HOLDING THAT R.C. 2506.01 DOES NOT CREATE AN

INDEPENDENT STATUTORY RIGHT OF APPEAL.

       {¶14} “IV. THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN

HOLDING THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION LACKED STATUTORY STANDING TO

APPEAL PURSUANT TO R.C. 2506.01.”

                                           I., II., III., IV.

       {¶15} The issue before this Court is whether the Fairfield County Common Pleas

Court erred in holding that a board of education lacks statutory authority to appeal a

decision of a county board of revision to the common pleas court as an administrative

appeal pursuant to R.C. §2506.01.

                                      Statutory Background

       {¶16} This appeal presents an issue of statutory construction occasioned by the

passage of H.B.126, which took effect on July 21, 2022. H.B. 126 imposed severe

restrictions on the participation of boards of education in ad valorem real property tax

proceedings and enacted a series of new procedural and substantive requirements for

boards of education filing valuation complaints. See R.C. §5715.19(A)(6). Among the

most severe of the new restrictions, the General Assembly eliminated the right of boards

of education (and other public entities and political subdivisions authorized to participate

in board of revision cases) to appeal decisions of boards of revision to the Board of Tax

Appeals (“BTA”) pursuant to R.C. §5717.01.

       {¶17} Previously, R.C. §5717.01 allowed boards of education to appeal board of

revision decisions to the BTA:
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                   5

              An appeal from a decision of a county board of revision may be

       taken to the board of tax appeals .... Such an appeal may be taken by the

       county auditor, the tax commissioner, or any board, legislative authority,

       public official, or taxpayer authorized by section 5715.19 of the Revised

       Code to file complaints against valuations or assessments with the

       auditor.

       {¶18} In its relevant part, the revisions to R.C. §5717.01 read:

              An appeal from a decision of a county board of revision may be taken

       to the board of tax appeals *** Such an appeal may be taken by the county

       auditor, the tax commissioner, or any board, legislative authority, public

       official, or taxpayer authorized by section 5715.19 of the Revised Code to

       file complaints again valuation or assessments with the auditor, except that

       a subdivision that files an original complaint or counter-complaint under that

       section with respect to property the subdivision does not own or lease may

       not appeal the decision of the board of revision with respect to that original

       complaint or counter-complaint. R.C. §5717.01, amended by H.B. 126.

       {¶19} It is undisputed that H.B. 126's elimination of a board of education's right to

appeal to the BTA applies to boards of education filing "original complaints" and "counter-

complaints" as those terms are now defined by newly enacted R.C. §5715.19 after the

effective date of H.B. 126.

       {¶20} It is also undisputed that H.B. 126 did not amend R.C. §5717.05 which

provides an additional avenue for an appeal of a board of revision decision to the county

common pleas court "as an alternative to the appeal provided for in section 5717.01" to
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                   6

the BTA "by the person in whose name the property is listed or sought to be listed for

taxation" (i.e. the property owner). See R.C. §5717.05. The General Assembly has not

amended R.C. §5715.05 since its enactment in 1989. See R.C. §5717.05.

       {¶21} Appellant herein concedes that prior to the amendment of R.C. §5717.01

by H.B. 126, the Board of Education did not have a statutory right to appeal a decision of

a board of revision to the common pleas court pursuant to R.C. §2506.01 because R.C.

§2506.01(C) specifically provides that an appeal is not available from a "decision from

which an appeal is granted by *** statute to a higher administrative authority if a right to

a hearing on appeal is provided ***” and because an appeal to the BTA pursuant R.C.

§5717.01 routinely provides for a hearing on appeal, R.C. §5717.01 precluded an appeal

under R.C. §2506.01. Appellant argues, however, that when H.B. 126 removed the Board

of Education's right of appeal to the BTA pursuant to R.C. §5717.01, it opened up an

avenue for the Board of Education to appeal to the Common Pleas Court pursuant to R.C.

§2506.01.

                                            Standing

       {¶22} It is well established that before an Ohio court can consider the merits of a

legal claim, the person seeking relief must establish standing to sue. Ohio Contractors

Assn. v. Bicking, 71 Ohio St.3d 318, 320, 643 N.E.2d 1088 (1994).

       {¶23} “The right to appeal an administrative decision is neither inherent nor

inalienable; to the contrary, it must be conferred by statute.” Midwest Fireworks Mfg. Co.

v. Deerfield Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 91 Ohio St.3d 174, 177, 743 N.E.2d 894, 897

(2001), citing Roper v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Richfield Tp., Summit Cty., 173 Ohio St.

168, 173, 180 N.E.2d 591 (1962).
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                    7

       {¶24} “Because one cannot appeal an administrative order absent statutory

authority, the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear a case unless authority to appeal is

granted by statute.” Alesi v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Commrs, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2013-

12-123, CA2013-12-124, CA2013-12-127, CA2013-12-128, CA2013-12-131, and

CA2013-12-132, 2014-Ohio-5192, ¶17. Therefore, standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite

that cannot be waived. Id.

       {¶25} “The burden of proof to establish standing lies with the party seeking to

appeal and therefore that party must ensure that the record supports his or her claim of

standing.” Safest Neighborhood Assn. v. Athens Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 4th Dist. Athens

Nos. 12CA32 thru 12CA35, 2013-Ohio-5610, ¶ 20; Kurtock v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning

Appeals, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100266, 2014-Ohio-1836, ¶10; Alexis Entertainment,

L.L.C. v. Toledo, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1028, 2013-Ohio-3946, ¶ 9, citing Kraus v. Put-

In-Bay Tp. Bd. of Zoning & Appeals, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-04-011, 2004-Ohio-4678,

¶12.

       {¶26} Whether a party has established standing to bring an action before the court

is a question of law, which we review de novo. Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55,

2012-Ohio-3897, 975 N.E.2d 977, ¶ 20, citing Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State,

112 Ohio St.3d 59, 2006-Ohio-6499, 858 N.E.2d 330, ¶ 23.

                                          Analysis

       {¶27} The cardinal rule of statutory construction requires a court to first look at

the specific language of the statute itself and, if the meaning of the statute is unambiguous

and definite, further interpretation is not necessary and a court must apply the statute as

written. State v. Jordan, 89 Ohio St.3d 488, 492, 733 N.E.2d 601 (2000), quoting State
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                   8

ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660

N.E.2d 463 (1996). Ambiguity exists only if the language of a statute is susceptible of

more than one reasonable interpretation, and the facts and circumstances of a case do

not permit a court to read ambiguity into a statute. Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181,

2013-Ohio-2163, ¶ 16. “ ‘[W]here the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it

is the duty of the court to enforce the statute as written, making neither additions to the

statute nor subtractions therefrom.’ ” State v. Knoble, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 08CA009359,

2008–Ohio–5004, ¶ 12, quoting Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d

451, 2002–Ohio–6718, 780 N.E.2d 543 ¶ 14. “Thus, inquiry into legislative intent,

legislative history, public policy, the consequences of an interpretation, or any other

factors identified in R.C. 1.49 is inappropriate absent an initial finding that the language

of the statute is, itself, capable of bearing more than one meaning.” Dunbar at ¶ 16.

       {¶28} “It is a basic tenet of statutory construction that ‘the General Assembly is

not presumed to do a vain or useless thing, and that when language is inserted in a statute

it is inserted to accomplish some definite purpose.’ ” State v. Wilson, 77 Ohio St.3d 334,

336, 673 N.E.2d 1347 (1997), quoting State ex rel. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Euclid,

169 Ohio St. 476, 479, 159 N.E.2d 756 (1959); See also New Albany-Plain Local Schools

Bd. of Education v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-732, 2023-Ohio-

3806, 226 N.E.3d 1035, ¶ 35.

       {¶29} As set forth above, revised R.C. §5717.01 provides that school boards of

education are prohibited from filing appeals from a decision by the board of revision with

the BTA regarding property the school boards neither own nor lease. Further, the
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                  9

legislature made no changes to R.C. §5717.05 which allows an appeal by the property

owner from the board of revision to the common pleas court.

      {¶30} We find no ambiguity in either R.C. §5717.01 or R.C. §5717.05.

      {¶31} Appellants concede that they no longer have a right to appeal to the BTA

but argue instead that because of said changes, they now have a right to appeal to the

common pleas court under R.C. §2506.01.

      {¶32} R.C. Chapter 5717 does provide a right to appeal to the common pleas

court under R.C. §5717.05, however this right is granted only to property owners, not

boards of education.

      {¶33} R.C. Chapter 5717 could not be clearer in expressing the intent that the

right to appeal to the common pleas court under R.C. §5717.05 resides solely with the

property owner.

      {¶34} “All statutes relating to the same subject matter must be read in pari materia,

and construed together, so as to give the proper force and effect to each and all such

statutes.” (Emphasis sic.) In re K.J., 10th Dist. No. 13AP-1050, 2014-Ohio-3472, ¶ 21,

citing State v. Cook, 128 Ohio St.3d 120, 2010-Ohio-6305, 942 N.E.2d 357, ¶ 45.

      {¶35} Upon review, we find that the General Assembly expressed its intent to deny

boards of education a right to appeal a decision of a board of revision by removing said

right under R.C. §5717.01 and by not modifying R.C. §5717.05 to include said boards of

education.

                                        R.C. §2506.01

      {¶36} Appellant herein argues that it now has a right to appeal under R.C.

§2506.01.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                 10

       {¶37} R.C. §2506.01 establishes the right to appeal an administrative decision of

a political subdivision that determines “rights, duties, privileges, benefits or legal

relationships of a person * * *.” R.C. §2506.01(C).

       {¶38} We look to the language of Revised Code §2506.01, which 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 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.

       {¶39} This Court recognizes that R.C. §2506.01 “ ‘does not address the question

of who has standing to bring such an appeal.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) Myers v. Clinebell, 6th
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                   11

Dist. Sandusky No. S-98-048, 1999 WL 300620, (May 14, 1999), quoting Willoughby Hills

v. C. C. Bar's Sahara, Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 24, 26, 591 N.E.2d 1203 (1992). We construe

the plain, clear and unambiguous language of R.C. §2506.01 its usual and customary

meanings. Medcorp, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 121 Ohio St.3d 622, 2009-

Ohio-2058, 906 N.E.2d 1125, ¶ 9. “ ‘[I]t is the duty of the court to give effect to the words

used, not to delete words used or insert words not used.’ ” Westgate Shopping Village v.

Toledo, 93 Ohio App.3d 507, 517-18, 639 N.E.2d 126 (6th Dist.1994), quoting Cline v.

Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 61 Ohio St.3d 93, 97, 573 N.E.2d 77 (1991).

       {¶40} R.C. §2506.01 does not create a cause of action where none otherwise

exists. Regarding administrative appeals under R.C. §2506.01, Ohio courts require a

party to identify a statutory provision that expressly authorizes the filing of an appeal.

Yanega v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 156 Ohio St.3d 203, 2018-Ohio-5208, 124

N.E.3d 806, '¶ 10 ("there is no inherent right to appeal an administrative decision; rather,

the right must be conferred by statute"). This statutory permission cannot come from R.C.

§2506.01 itself. JRB Holdings, LLC v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision, 5th Dist. Stark No.

2021CA00144, 2022-Ohio-1646, ¶11-18, (looking beyond R.C. Chapter 2506 to

determine whether an appeal from a board of revision is permitted).

       {¶41} Rather, that authority must arise from another statutory provision. See also

Hamer v. Danbury Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1210, 2020-

Ohio-3209, 155 N.E.3d 218, ¶10 (“jurisdiction over an administrative appeal is improper

unless granted by R.C. 119.12 or other specific statutory authority”), quoting Nkanginieme

v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-596, 2015-Ohio-656, 29 N.E.3d

281, ¶ 15.
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                12

       {¶42} R.C. §2506.01 is a general statute dealing with appeals from various

bodies. R.C. §5717.01, on the other hand, is a special statute specifically dealing with

board of revision property valuations and rights of appeal therefrom. Under such

circumstances, R.C. §5717.01 prevails and is exclusively applicable. As set forth by the

Ohio Supreme Court in Acme Engineering Co. v. Jones (1948), 150 Ohio St. 423, 83

N.E.2d 202:

              A special statutory provision which applies to a specific subject

       matter constitutes an exception to a general statutory provision covering

       other subjects as well as the specific subject matter which might otherwise

       be included under the general provision. (State, ex rel. Steller et al.,

       Trustees, v. Zangerle, Aud., 100 Ohio St. 414, 126 N.E. 413, and paragraph

       one of the syllabus in State, ex rel. Elliott Co., v. Connar, Supt., 123 Ohio

       St. 310, 175 N.E. 200, approved and followed.)

       {¶43} See also Ruprecht v. City of Cincinnati, 64 Ohio App.2d 90, 92–93, 411

N.E.2d 504, 507 (1st Dist.1979).

       {¶44} We further find that the Supreme Court of Ohio's holdings in Nuspl v. City

of Akron and Anderson v. City of Akron, 61 Ohio St.3d 511, 575 N.E.2d 447 (1991),

Sutherland–Wagner v. Brook Park Civil Service Commission, 32 Ohio St.3d 323, 512

N.E.2d 1170 (1987) and Walker v. Eastlake (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 273, 275, 400 N.E.2d

908, 909-910, provide that “an appeal is available from a final order of a commission of a

political subdivision of the state unless another statute, enacted subsequent to the

enactment of R.C. 2506.01, clearly prohibits the use of this section.” The Nuspl court
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 2023 CA 00041, 00042, 00043                                 13

specifically held R.C. §2506.01 “provides an aggrieved party an additional avenue of relief

that is not expressly prohibited by a subsequently enacted statute.” Id. at 515.

       {¶45} Here, we find that R.C. §5717.01 (and R.C. §5717.05) was enacted

subsequent to R.C. §2506.01 and that such statute, through its newly enacted revisions,

prohibits an appeal from a decision of the board of revision by a board of education to

either the BTA or the common pleas court.

       {¶46} Having found Appellant is without standing to appeal pursuant to R.C.

§2506.01, we find no error by the lower court in granting Appellees’ motions to dismiss.

       {¶47} Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield

County, Ohio, is affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Wise, P. J., and

King, J., concur.