2020 Ohio 3865
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Corex Partners (owner) challenged the Franklin County Auditor's 2014–2015 valuations for an office building at 2400 Corporate Exchange Dr.; auditor values were $4.5M for each year.
- Corex relied on a continuing complaint originally filed for tax year 2011; the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) issued reductions for 2014 and 2015 in October 2016.
- The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed the BOR in September 2017 (Corex I), effectively reinstating the auditor’s values; Corex appealed to the Tenth District, which dismissed that appeal in May 2018 for failure to serve required parties (Corex II).
- After the Supreme Court clarified continuing-complaint rules in Life Path Partners and MDM Holdings (2018), Corex requested another continuing-complaint hearing on 2014–2015; the BOR dismissed that request and the BTA reversed and remanded (Corex III, Apr. 17, 2019).
- Westerville City Schools appealed the BTA’s Corex III decision to the Tenth District, arguing relitigation was barred by res judicata and the law of the case, and that R.C. 5715.19(D) does not permit successive continuing-complaint requests; the Tenth District reversed the BTA and remanded with instructions to reinstate the auditor’s original valuation.
Issues
| Issue | Westerville's Argument | Corex's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BTA unlawfully allowed relitigation of valuation years that were finally determined by this court | Tenth District’s dismissal of Corex II was a final determination; res judicata and law-of-the-case bar relitigation | BTA’s vacatur left no active BOR decision; under Life Path and MDM the BOR may hear continuing-complaint requests until the original complaint is finally determined | Court held relitigation was barred; res judicata and law-of-the-case precluded BTA’s remand and reconsideration; BTA decision reversed |
| Whether R.C. 5715.19(D) permits multiple continuing-complaint requests for the same years | The statute does not authorize successive continuing-complaint filings after a court-dismissed appeal; BOR/BTA cannot provide an extralegal revaluation | The statute contains no termination point and Life Path/MDM prevent imposing stricter requirements, so continuing complaint can be invoked again | Court held statute does not authorize the relief Corex sought given the procedural history; BTA exceeded authority by ordering revaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Life Path Partners, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 152 Ohio St.3d 238 (2018) (continuing-complaint remains in effect until original complaint is finally determined)
- MDM Holdings, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 152 Ohio St.3d 555 (2018) (BTA may not impose timeliness rules beyond statute for continuing complaints)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (res judicata bars subsequent claims arising from same transaction)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (law-of-the-case doctrine binds subsequent proceedings on legal questions decided)
- Hubbard ex rel. Creed v. Sauline, 74 Ohio St.3d 402 (1996) (law-of-the-case and issue preclusion principles)