2200 Carnegie, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
961 N.E.2d 726
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Carnegie challenges BOE's combined parcel valuations (103-16-029 and 103-16-030) for 2006; initial county audit valued at $422,200.
- BOE filed a March 27, 2007 complaint with BOR seeking a $520,000 valuation based on a 2006 sale.
- BOR conducted a hearing August 30, 2007 and granted the increase; Carnegie was notified October 11, 2007.
- Carnegie appealed to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court; trial court remanded September 8, 2008 to cure notice issues.
- BOR again notified Carnegie September 25, 2008; hearing held April 16, 2009; BOR issued a $520,000 valuation on August 6, 2009.
- Carnegie appealed again; trial court affirmed in March 2011; majority reverses, dissent would affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOR lacked jurisdiction due to improper notice under R.C. 5715.19 | Carnegie contends lack of notice voids BOR jurisdiction. | BOE argues notice may be cured and does not defeat jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction defective; must reverse. |
| Whether BOR's incomplete transcript certification affected jurisdiction | Carnegie asserts incomplete transcript undermines court jurisdiction. | Board contends transcript issues do not deprive jurisdiction. | Second issue moot; no jurisdictional bar shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knickerbocker Properties, Inc. XLII v. Delawar e Cty. Bd. of Revision, 119 Ohio St.3d 233 (2008-Ohio-3192) (BOR notice defects do not necessarily defeat jurisdiction)
- Roberts v. Clinton Cty. Aud., 2008-Ohio-535 (2008) (statutory notice requirements may be cured)