2188 Brockway, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer
2015 Ohio 109
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Brockway owned property and sought a tax-value reduction before the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR); BOR denied the reduction after a hearing on November 14, 2013.
- Brockway filed a direct appeal under R.C. 5717.05 on December 6, 2013, filing the notice with the common pleas court and serving the county auditor (fiscal officer) by certified mail.
- Brockway did not serve the BOR by certified mail within 30 days; it hand-delivered a copy and later (March 12, 2014) served the BOR by certified mail after the fiscal officer moved to dismiss.
- The fiscal officer moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing certified-mail service on the BOR within 30 days is mandatory and jurisdictional under R.C. 5717.05.
- The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Brockway's appeal. Brockway appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certified-mail service on appellees (including BOR) must occur within 30 days under R.C. 5717.05 | Brockway: statute requires filing with court and BOR within 30 days; service by certified mail on appellees is required but not time-limited, so late certified service cured defect | Fiscal officer/BOR: R.C. 5717.05's certified-mail requirement is jurisdictional and must be strictly complied with within 30 days | Court held the 30-day limit applies to "filing" with the court and BOR, not to certified-mail service on appellees; late certified service was acceptable here and dismissal was improper |
| Whether failure to serve BOR by certified mail within 30 days deprives the court of jurisdiction | Brockway: failure to serve within 30 days did not divest jurisdiction because filing was timely and BOR is the tribunal, not a party | BOR: strict compliance is jurisdictional; lack of certified service on BOR within the statutory period mandates dismissal | Court held jurisdiction was not defeated where the notice was timely filed and appellees (including BOR) were subsequently served by certified mail; reversal and remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Huber Heights v. Carne, 74 Ohio St.3d 306 (Ohio 1996) (R.C. 5717.05 requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Exchange Street Assoc., L.L.C. v. Donofrio, 187 Ohio App.3d 241 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (statute's 30-day limit applies to filing with court/BOR; certified-mail service on appellees is not time-limited)
- Hubbard v. Canton City School Board of Education, 97 Ohio St.3d 451 (Ohio 2002) (courts must enforce clear statutory language as written)