Devan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision
45 N.E.3d 661
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Mark R. DeVan (appellant) purchased and moved into a Broadview Heights home on August 30, 2013 and filed a "late" homestead-exemption application in January 2014 seeking relief for tax year 2013.
- The county fiscal officer denied the application (April 2014) citing that DeVan’s income exceeded the post‑2014 means-test threshold; the Board of Revision (BOR) affirmed the denial for the same stated reason.
- DeVan appealed to the Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court; that court affirmed the BOR but on a different ground — finding DeVan did not own and occupy the property on January 1, 2013.
- DeVan argued he qualified because he turned 65 in 2013 and R.C. 323.153(B) allows late applicants who turned 65 in 2013 to obtain the prior year’s benefit regardless of income.
- The appellate court reviewed the statutory scheme (R.C. 323.151–.154), noted legislature deleted January 1 language from the current R.C. 323.154, and held the trial court’s January 1 ownership/occupancy ground was unreasonable.
- Judgment: appellate court reversed and remanded with instructions to approve DeVan’s 2013 homestead exemption application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a late applicant who turned 65 in 2013 may obtain the 2013 homestead exemption despite acquiring the home after Jan. 1, 2013 | DeVan: statutory scheme and R.C. 323.153(B) permit late filing for 2013 and do not require ownership/occupancy on Jan. 1, 2013 | BOR: applicant must have owned/occupied the homestead on Jan. 1, 2013 (relying on earlier case law) | Court held the January 1 ownership/occupancy requirement is not required by the current statutory scheme; DeVan is entitled to the 2013 exemption |
| Whether the trial court erred by affirming BOR on January 1 ownership ground rather than means-test ground | DeVan: he turned 65 in 2013, so income cap does not apply to his late 2013 claim under amended statute | BOR/Fiscal Officer: denial was proper because income exceeded post‑2014 threshold | Court found denial on Jan. 1 ground was unreasonable and remanded to approve application (effectively favoring DeVan despite BOR’s income-based denial) |
| Whether Dugan (10th Dist.) controls to require Jan. 1 ownership/parcel existence | DeVan: Dugan is distinguishable (different facts; earlier statutory version) | BOR: Dugan supports the need to apply Jan. 1 tax‑lien-date analysis | Court: Dugan is distinguishable; statutes have been amended and current R.C. 323.154 deletes January 1 language |
| Whether appellate court should address constitutional (rational basis) challenge | DeVan: suggested a rational-basis challenge to the statute’s application | BOR: procedural posture waived constitutional issue | Court: declined to reach constitutional question, resolved case on statutory interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 16 Ohio St.3d 11 (Ohio 1985) (trial court must independently weigh evidence on appeal from board of revision)
- Lorain City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 40 Ohio St.3d 257 (Ohio 1988) (appellate review of trial court’s administrative-agency decision limited to abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (failure to raise constitutional claim at trial waives it on appeal)
- Gilman v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 127 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 2010) (history and statutory framework of Ohio homestead exemption)