1495 Jaeger L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
132 Ohio St. 3d 222
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Jaeger challenges the BTA's denial of a motion to carry forward a stipulated 2008 tax value to subsequent years.
- The BTA adopted the 2008 stipulated value in February 2011; Jaeger sought to carry it forward to 2011 in July 2011.
- The BTA denied the motion on jurisdictional grounds after the 30-day appeal period expired.
- Jaeger appeals, arguing continuing-complaint jurisdiction requires carry-forward of the 2008 value to later years.
- The court held the BTA lacked jurisdiction to modify its decision after the appeal period, and the continuing-complaint provisions do not expand BTA jurisdiction beyond normal limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 5715.19(D) create jurisdiction to carry forward the 2008 value to later years? | Jaeger asserts continuing-complaint mandates carry-forward to 2009–2011. | BTA argues no carry-forward jurisdiction beyond the original case during pendency limits. | No; continuing-complaint does not expand BTA jurisdiction beyond normal limits. |
| Did the BTA have authority to modify after the 30-day appeal period expired? | Jaeger relied on continuing-complaint to extend relief to later years. | BTA loses jurisdiction once the 30-day appeal period ends if no timely appeal is filed. | BTA correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to modify after expiration of the appeal period. |
| Should the continuing-complaint mechanism operate at the board of revision level for later years? | Continued proceedings could address 2009–2011 without new complaints. | Continued-complaint applies to the board of revision, not to the BTA after final disposition. | Continuing-complaint applies to BOR during pendency; after final BTA order, it does not expand BTA jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oberlin Manor, Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision, 69 Ohio St.3d 1 (1994) (carry-forward required when interim years are at issue)
- Wolf v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 11 Ohio St.3d 205 (1984) (original complaint carries over to subsequent years)
- AERC Saw Mill Village, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 127 Ohio St.3d 44 (2010) (carry-forward must be harmonized with auditor’s duties)
- ABRC, 127 Ohio St.3d 44 (2010) (carry-forward under continuing-complaint discussed (ABRC context))
- Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 87 Ohio St.3d 305 (1999) (continuing-complaint principles in BOR/BTA context)