2018 Ohio 541
Ohio2018Background
- MDM Holdings filed a BOR complaint on March 5, 2012 contesting the 2011 valuation; the BOR issued its decision on May 13, 2013 (more than 90 days after filing).
- Because the BOR did not decide within 90 days, R.C. 5715.19(D)’s continuing-complaint provision applied, so the original 2012 proceedings remained in effect for ensuing years without a new filing.
- On January 15, 2015, MDM submitted a request letter to the Cuyahoga County BOR seeking a hearing on the 2012 valuation under the continuing-complaint theory.
- The BOR dismissed the request under a county 30-day rule requiring such requests within 30 days of final disposition of the original complaint; the BTA affirmed but on a different ground, holding the request untimely because it was not filed within the calendar year in which the original complaint was finally resolved.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether the BOR had continuing-complaint jurisdiction for tax year 2012 under R.C. 5715.19(D) and whether the BOR/BTA could impose timeliness requirements contrary to that statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOR had continuing-complaint jurisdiction over tax year 2012 under R.C. 5715.19(D) | MDM: statute’s plain language preserves the original complaint for ensuing years until finally determined, so BOR has jurisdiction for 2012 without a new complaint | BOR/BTA: request letter was untimely under local/BTA timing rules and therefore BOR lacked jurisdiction | Court: Held BOR had continuing-complaint jurisdiction for 2012; statute’s plain text controls and preserves the original complaint without further filing |
| Whether BOR/BTA may impose deadlines for invoking continuing-complaint jurisdiction | MDM: no statutory authorization for BOR/BTA to dismiss continuing complaints for lack of timeliness | BOR/BTA: timing rules (30-day county rule; BTA’s calendar-year rule) limited the period to invoke continuing jurisdiction | Court: Held such deadlines are contrary to R.C. 5715.19(D) and therefore impermissible; Life Path precedent supports that BOR/BTA cannot impose timing bars |
Key Cases Cited
- 1495 Jaeger, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 132 Ohio St.3d 222, 970 N.E.2d 949 (Ohio 2012) (explaining continuing-complaint concept under R.C. 5715.19(D))
- AERC Saw Mill Village, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 127 Ohio St.3d 44, 936 N.E.2d 472 (Ohio 2010) (upheld BOR jurisdiction where continuing complaint invoked after prior-year determination)
- Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 87 Ohio St.3d 305, 720 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 1999) (request letter can invoke BOR continuing jurisdiction even if submitted in year after final determination)
- Life Path Partners, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 152 Ohio St.3d 238, 94 N.E.3d 565 (Ohio 2018) (holding BOR/BTA lack authority to dismiss continuing complaints for untimeliness)