Huber Hts. City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision
2012 Ohio 193
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Oakcrest Manor SD, Inc. owns Brandt Pike Shopping Center at 6550-6600 Brandt Pike; filed 2008 complaint challenging valuation for 2008 based on occupancy change of at least fifteen percent; BOR dismissed for failure to attend hearings; common pleas dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness.
- Oakcrest filed a 2009 complaint challenging the 2009 valuation based on occupancy change; BOR reduced value from about $2.4 million to $1.4 million; Board of Education appealed to the BTA arguing the 2009 complaint was a second filing within a single interim period and did not satisfy exceptions for a successive filing.
- The BTA remanded oakcrest’s 2009 complaint to the BOR with instructions to dismiss.
- Oakcrest appeals the BTA decision, arguing the 2009 complaint satisfies the RC 5715.19(A)(2)(d) exception because occupancy decline had a substantial economic impact; Board argues occupancy change occurred before the tax lien date for the 2008 complaint and thus is not within the exception.
- The court analyzes whether the 2009 complaint falls within the statutory second-filing exceptions and reviews the BTA’s legal construction de novo; the appellate court determines the 2009 complaint did not qualify for a second filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2009 complaint qualifies under RC 5715.19(A)(2) exceptions for a second filing. | Oakcrest contends 2009 occupancy decline after tax lien date justified a second filing. | Board argues occupancy change did not occur after the 2008 lien date; not within the exception. | Yes: the 2009 complaint did not qualify; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- AERC Saw Mill Village, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 127 Ohio St.3d 44 (Ohio 2010) (defines an interim period and supports de novo review of legal questions related to filing exceptions)
- Elkem Metals Co. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revisions, 81 Ohio St.3d 683 (Ohio 1998) (rejects merit-based relief for first filing dismissed for jurisdictional reasons; enforces plain statutory language)
- Akron Centre Plaza, L.L.C. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 128 Ohio St.3d 145 (Ohio 2010) (distinguishes whether new facts in second filing fall within the same or a different circumstance under RC 5715.19(A)(2))
- Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Testa, 2011-Ohio-5534 (Ohio Supreme Court) (state’s review standard for BTA decisions; confirms de novo legal analysis of statutory questions)
- Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St.3d 399 (Ohio 2006) (establishes de novo review for legal questions in BTA decisions)