2023 Ohio 3806
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Twelve consolidated appeals by several Ohio school boards contest BTA dismissals for lack of jurisdiction after the BTA applied its decision in North Ridgeville, which interpreted 2022 Am. Sub. H.B. No. 126 (H.B. 126) to bar boards of education from appealing BOR decisions about property they do not own or lease.
- The litigants challenged county Board of Revision (BOR) valuations for tax year 2021; the complaints giving rise to the BOR decisions were filed before H.B. 126 took effect (July 21, 2022), but some BOR decisions and subsequent BTA appeals occurred after that date.
- H.B. 126 amended R.C. 5717.01 by adding an exception: a "subdivision that files an original complaint or counter-complaint under [R.C. 5715.19] with respect to property the subdivision does not own or lease may not appeal" the BOR decision regarding that complaint; H.B. 126 also defined "original complaint" and "counter-complaint" in R.C. 5715.19.
- The BTA held (following North Ridgeville) that the amended R.C. 5717.01 applied and deprived the school boards of appellate jurisdiction because they did not own or lease the properties at issue.
- The Tenth District reversed the BTA: it held that the newly added exception in R.C. 5717.01 applies only to appeals from BOR decisions on "original complaints" or "counter-complaints" as defined in the amended R.C. 5715.19 — i.e., complaints filed under the post-H.B. 126 statute — so complaints filed before July 21, 2022 were not covered; the appeals were remanded to the BTA for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the H.B. 126 exception in amended R.C. 5717.01 bars appeals where the underlying complaint was filed before July 21, 2022 | Boards: Exception does not apply to complaints filed under the pre-H.B. 126 statute; they remain entitled to appeal under the general rule | BTA/Appellees: Amended R.C. 5717.01 became effective July 21, 2022 and limits appeals regardless of when complaint was filed | Held: Exception applies only to "original complaint"/"counter-complaint" as defined in amended R.C. 5715.19 (i.e., post-H.B. 126 complaints); pre-effective complaints are not barred from appeal |
| Whether the terms "original complaint" and "counter-complaint" merely codified preexisting usage and thus reach complaints filed before H.B. 126 | Boards: Because those terms did not appear in the pre-amendment statute, they cannot be read to cover pre-amendment complaints | BTA/Appellees: Terms had established usage; H.B. 126 simply codified existing meaning and the exception therefore applies | Held: Legislature’s deliberate insertion and definition of those terms indicates a changed scope; read in pari materia, the terms refer to complaints filed under amended R.C. 5715.19, so they do not reach the pre-effective complaints here |
| Whether application of amended R.C. 5717.01 to these appeals would be an improper retroactive application | Boards: Retroactivity problem because the complaints were filed before amendment and amendment changes appeal rights | BTA/Appellees: Right to appeal is independent of complaint filing; applying the statute to appeals filed after the effective date is prospective | Held: Court confirmed H.B. 126 effective July 21, 2022 but did not need to resolve broader retroactivity question because the exception is inapplicable to these pre-effective complaints |
| Whether BTA correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on North Ridgeville | Boards: BTA misapplied H.B. 126 and wrongly dismissed | BTA/Appellees: North Ridgeville controlling; dismissal warranted | Held: Reversed — BTA erred to dismiss these appeals rooted in pre-H.B. 126 complaints; appeals may proceed under the general rule in R.C. 5717.01 |
Key Cases Cited
- NWD 300 Spring L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 151 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio 2017) (standard: review BTA decision for whether it is reasonable and lawful)
- Westerville City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 146 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio 2016) ( appellate court will reverse BTA for incorrect legal conclusions )
- Ross v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 155 Ohio St.3d 373 (Ohio 2018) (boards/BORs are statutory creatures; jurisdiction depends on statute)
- Groveport Madison Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 137 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2013) (R.C. 5715.19 is the jurisdictional gateway to boards of revision)
- Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 147 Ohio St.3d 38 (Ohio 2016) (discusses usage of original/counter-complaint terminology in tax appeals)
- Greenville Law Library Assn. v. Ansonia, 33 Ohio St.2d 3 (Ohio 1973) (when legislature changes statutory language, courts presume changed effect and operation of law)