Marysville Exempted Village School District Board of Education v. Union County Board of Revision
136 Ohio St. 3d 146
Ohio2013Background
- Ten valuation complaints were filed by a salaried Connolly Construction employee on behalf of the corporate owner; the BOR ordered decreases in value; the school board appealed to the BTA and sought dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to non-attorney filing; the BTA granted the school's motion and remanded the cases for dismissal; the case centers on whether a non-lawyer salaried employee may file on behalf of a corporate owner; the court ultimately held that the statutory authorization was valid and the complaints properly invoked BOR jurisdiction; the matter is remanded to the BTA for merits after reversing the BTA’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) authorize a nonlawyer salaried employee to file on behalf of a corporation? | Connolly relied on 5715.19(A)(1) to permit filing by the salaried employee. | School board argued filing by a non-attorney constitutes unauthorized practice of law, and thus lacks jurisdiction. | Yes; statute authorizes nonlawyer filing, so jurisdiction is properly invoked. |
| May the BTA apply McDonald’s Corp. to uphold dismissal for lack of jurisdiction? | Connolly referenced McDonald’s Corp. to support dismissal avoidance. | BTA must follow controlling precedents including McDonald’s Corp. | BTA had jurisdiction to apply McDonald’s decision and dismiss. |
| Does the 1999 legislative amendment to 5715.19(A)(1) conflict with the court’s duty to regulate the practice of law? | Legislature acted within authority to authorize nonlawyer filing. | Sharon Village principle restricts nonlawyer filing as unauthorized practice. | Legislature acted within authority; amendments may be upheld; no constitutional conflict. |
| Does the General Assembly exceed authority by authorizing salaried employees to file on behalf of corporate owners? | Such authorization aligns with Columbus Bd. of Edn.’s approach and allowed relations. | Maintaining practice-of-law control is essential; nonlawyer filing risks unauthorized practice. | Authority upheld; salaried employees may file on behalf of corporations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 479 (1997) (nonlawyer filing of a valuation complaint constitutes the practice of law)
- Worthington City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 85 Ohio St.3d 156 (1999) (attorney involvement in preparing/filing allows non-attorney filing; no unauthorized practice issue)
- Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 134 Ohio St.3d 529 (2012) (upheld legislative authorization of filing on behalf of owner; defer to legislature and regulate practice of law)
- Dayton Supply & Tool Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 111 Ohio St.3d 367 (2006) (multifactor test for nonlawyer conduct; case-by-case consideration)
- McDonald’s Corp. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision, 974 N.E.2d 133 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012) (2012) (recent appellate decision affecting nonlawyer filing authority)
- Toledo Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 490 (2010) (agency authority to act as agent without triggering unauthorized practice of law when a lawyer was involved)