Mason City School District Board of Education v. Warren County Board of Revision
138 Ohio St. 3d 153
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Mason City School District Board of Education (appellee) and Squire Hill Properties II, L.L.C. (appellant) challenge a BTA decision regarding tax-year 2008 value of Shops at Deerfield South.
- BOR found the December 2006 sale was not recent for the tax lien date, supporting a lower value based on market conditions.
- BTA relied on the December 2006 sale price ($5,350,000) as the value for January 1, 2008, without addressing BOR’s recency finding.
- Squire Hill acquired the property after the BTA hearing but before the BTA decision, giving it standing to appeal under R.C. 5717.04(2).
- Issue arises whether Wasserpach (the former owner) must be served as an appellee; Olympic Steel governs this as a jurisdictional prerequisite.
- Court holds Wasserpach’s service is not required as a dispensable party, but vacates BTA decision for improper recency weighing and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether serving a dispensable party is jurisdictional | Squire Hill argues Wasserpach must be served as appellee. | School board argues Olympic Steel requires service to preserve jurisdiction. | Dispensable-party service is not jurisdictional; remand for recency weighing. |
| BTA's failure to consider BOR recency finding | Recency finding not weighed, affecting value determination. | BTA acted within discretion on recency without need for further evidence. | BTA erred; vacate and remand to evaluate recency properly. |
| Whether BTA had authority to adopt sale price independent of parties’ positions | BTA should weigh evidence and not be bound by the sale price proposed by parties. | BTA not bound to parties’ stated values when independently weighing evidence. | BTA may independently determine value; authority acknowledged. |
| Whether due-process notice requires continuing hearing or new-owner notice | BTA should have continued hearing or given notice to new owner. | No statutory or constitutional requirement to delay or notify new owner. | Due-process and notice requirements did not mandate continuation or new-owner notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 110 Ohio St.3d 1242 (2006-Ohio-4091) (jurisdictional requirement to serve notice on certain appellees under former RC 5717.04)
- Berea City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 111 Ohio St.3d 1219 (2006-Ohio-5601) (service timing and notice obligations in appeals)
- Columbus Apts. Assocs. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 67 Ohio St.2d 85 (1981) (owner as indispensable party; procedural safeguards for taxpayer)
- Waterville v. Spencer Twp., 37 Ohio St.2d 79 (1974) (failure to serve a dispensable party does not void jurisdiction)
- Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 27 (2009-Ohio-5932) (recency issues must be weighed; remand when not properly considered)
- Sapina v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 136 Ohio St.3d 188 (2013-Ohio-3028) (BTA independent weighing of evidence in valuation)
- Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 40 Ohio St.2d 61 (1974) (values placed by taxpayers do not bound tribunal’s independent determination)