2018 Ohio 4244
Ohio2018Background
- Greenway Ohio, Inc. (a corporate property owner) had a valuation complaint filed with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) in January 2016 by Scott Sweeney, a nonlawyer who identified himself as the property owner’s "property manager."
- No attorney prepared or filed the complaint; the Board of Education (BOE) filed a countercomplaint and later moved to dismiss for lack of BOR jurisdiction because Sweeney was not authorized to file on Greenway’s behalf.
- The BOR proceeded to a hearing, found Sweeney’s filing to be the unauthorized practice of law but issued a merits decision maintaining the valuation; Greenway appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA).
- The BTA, without holding an additional evidentiary hearing, concluded Sweeney was not authorized under R.C. 5715.19(A) to file for a corporation, held the complaint failed to invoke BOR jurisdiction, and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed de novo, rejected Greenway’s arguments that (1) a property manager’s filing was permitted, (2) the statutory list in R.C. 5715.19(A) is nonexclusive for nonlawyers, and (3) the BTA violated due process by ruling without a hearing; the Court affirmed the BTA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greenway) | Defendant's Argument (BOE/BOR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonlawyer property manager may prepare/file a valuation complaint for a corporate owner and invoke BOR jurisdiction | Sweeney acted as Greenway’s authorized property manager and a letter of authorization confirmed agency — so his filing invoked jurisdiction and was not unauthorized practice of law | Sweeney is not among nonlawyers authorized by R.C. 5715.19(A); his preparation/filing constituted unauthorized practice of law and failed to invoke jurisdiction | Held: Nonlawyer property managers are not authorized under R.C. 5715.19(A); Sweeney’s filing was unauthorized and BOR lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the enumerated nonlawyers in R.C. 5715.19(A) is nonexhaustive or may be expanded by agency principles absent lawyer involvement | The statutory list is not exhaustive; agency and later authorization (and a letter) suffice to permit filing | When a nonlawyer (not listed) files, Sharon Village and subsequent precedent require statutory authorization or lawyer involvement; list is the source of authorization for nonlawyers filing for corporations | Held: For nonlawyers, R.C. 5715.19(A) is the relevant authorization; absent lawyer involvement, persons not listed (e.g., property managers) cannot file for corporations |
| Whether Toledo Pub. Schools controls to allow a management company’s agent to file on behalf of owner | Toledo supports recognition of agency when a management company files on behalf of owner | Toledo is distinguishable because it involved a lawyer preparing/filing the complaint; without counsel, the unauthorized-practice-of-law rule governs | Held: Toledo does not apply because no attorney prepared/filed the complaint here; lawyer involvement is a crucial distinguishing element |
| Whether the BTA exceeded authority or violated due process by ruling without a hearing on jurisdiction | Greenway: BTA should have held a hearing per R.C. 5717.01 before remanding/dismissing | BOE/BOR: Jurisdictional defects can be raised at any time; BTA rules permit resolving fully briefed motions without a hearing; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction appropriate | Held: BTA did not exceed authority and did not violate due process; hearing was not required because legal defect was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 479 (Ohio 1997) (preparation and filing of a revision complaint on behalf of a taxpayer constitutes practice of law; agent who is not a lawyer cannot invoke BOR jurisdiction)
- Toledo Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 490 (Ohio 2010) (agency principles can allow non-owner entities to act when a lawyer prepares and files the complaint)
- Marysville Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision, 136 Ohio St.3d 146 (Ohio 2013) (upholding legislative authorization allowing certain nonlawyers to file because it does not substantially interfere with court’s regulation of law practice)
- Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 134 Ohio St.3d 529 (Ohio 2012) (interpretation of R.C. 5715.19(A) authorization for specified nonlawyers and limits on others)
- Akron Centre Plaza, L.L.C. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 128 Ohio St.3d 145 (Ohio 2010) (de novo review of legal questions involving BOR jurisdiction)
- Buckeye Foods v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 459 (Ohio 1997) (jurisdictional defects may be raised at any stage and cannot be waived)
- Diley Ridge Med. Ctr. v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Revision, 141 Ohio St.3d 149 (Ohio 2014) (administrative tax tribunals may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction even sua sponte)
- Brown v. Levin, 119 Ohio St.3d 335 (Ohio 2008) (BTA may deny hearing and summarily dispose of claims when additional evidence/hearing would accomplish nothing)