AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch
132 Ohio St. 3d 92
| Ohio | 2012Background
- AT&T sought income-tax refunds for 1999–2002; city tax administrator denied 1999 refund as time-barred and offset 2000–2002 refunds by other obligations.
- AT&T appealed to Cleveland Board of Income Tax Review; board affirmed 1999 denial but ordered full refund for 2000–2002.
- AT&T challenged board’s 2000–2002 refund decision in court of common pleas; administrator did not file a notice of appeal but submitted two assignments of error in brief.
- Common Pleas Court treated administrator’s two assignments as part of AT&T’s appeal and upheld all three assignments.
- Court of Appeals reversed as to administrator’s 2000–2002 assignments for lack of separate appeal by administrator; otherwise affirmed.
- Ohio Supreme Court held that each party seeking to reverse or modify an administrative decision must file a separate appeal to vest jurisdiction
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single notice of appeal to the common pleas court suffices for all issues | AT&T—no; separate appeals required for each party's assignments | Lynch—one appeal can cover all issues | No; separate appeals required for each party |
| Whether an appellee’s lack of a separate notice of appeal prevents review of that party’s assignments | AT&T and Lynch—administrative appeals allow review of all issues within one appeal | Administrator—single notice covers all challenges | Yes; separate appeals needed to review each party’s assignments |
| What governs jurisdiction in R.C. 2506.01 administrative appeals | Jurisdiction arises only via perfected appeal for every party | Single notice suffices under de novo-like review | Jurisdiction requires perfected, separate appeals by each party |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati Bell, Inc. v. Glendale, 42 Ohio St.2d 368 (Ohio 1975) (limits of new evidence in 2506.03 appeal; not de novo as to evidence)
- Dudukovich v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 58 Ohio St.2d 202 (Ohio 1979) (R.C. 2506.03 review; limits on substituting agency judgment)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 2000) (standard of review in 2506.04 appeal; substantial evidence)
- Maritime Mfrs., Inc. v. Hi–Skipper Marina, 70 Ohio St.2d 257 (Ohio 1982) (notice of appeal serves due process; informs opposing party)
- Welsh Development Co., Inc. v. Warren Cty. Regional Planning Comm., 128 Ohio St.3d 471 (Ohio 2011) (notice of appeal informs of taking of appeal; separate appeal needed for changes)
- In re Incorporation of Carlisle Ridge Village, 15 Ohio St.2d 177 (Ohio 1968) (framework for R.C. Chapter 2505/2506 proceedings)