2022 Ohio 495
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Dayton Fun Hotels filed a valuation complaint on July 31, 2020 challenging its 2019 property valuation; the county Board of Revision (BOR) held a hearing and on December 2, 2020 reduced the valuation.
- The issue arose after Ohio’s COVID-19 emergency measures: Am. Sub. H.B. 197 (Section 22) tolled many limitation periods from March 9 to July 30, 2020, but the governor line-item-vetoed the words "or deadline" from Section 22(A)(10).
- Montgomery County’s BOR publicly posted an extension of the filing deadline to August 24, 2020; Dayton Fun relied on that extension when filing July 31.
- The Northridge Local Schools Board of Education (BOE) moved to dismiss Dayton Fun’s complaint as untimely (filed after the statutory March 31 deadline); BOE appealed the BOR’s decision to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA).
- The BTA vacated the BOR’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint as untimely, reasoning H.B. 197 did not toll the March 31 filing deadline because the governor removed "or deadline." The appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether H.B. 197 tolled the R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) March 31 filing requirement for BOR valuation complaints | H.B. 197 tolled statutes of limitation, time limitations, and deadlines retroactive to March 9, 2020, so a July 31, 2020 filing was timely | The governor deleted "or deadline" from Section 22(A)(10); the March 31 date is a statutory "deadline," not tolled by H.B. 197 | The court held the March 31 requirement is a "deadline" that was not tolled by H.B. 197; BTA decision affirmed and complaint untimely |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars dismissal based on the BOR’s publicized extension | Dayton Fun relied on BOR’s website extension and prosecutorial advice and changed its position; estoppel should prevent dismissal | Equitable estoppel is inapplicable against a political subdivision performing governmental functions | The court rejected estoppel; doctrine cannot be applied against the political subdivision in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Life Path Partners, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 152 Ohio St.3d 238 (Ohio Supreme Court holding March 31 is the statutory filing deadline for board-of-revision complaints)
- NWD 300 Spring, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 151 Ohio St.3d 193 (standard of review for BTA decisions is whether they are reasonable and lawful)
- Kohl’s Illinois, Inc. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Revision, 140 Ohio St.3d 522 (characterizing the March 31 filing date as a jurisdictional deadline)
- Sheldon Rd. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 131 Ohio St.3d 201 (discussing March 31 deadline and its jurisdictional nature)
- Meeks v. Papadopulos, 62 Ohio St.2d 187 (principle that an unambiguous statute must be applied as written)
- Hortman v. Miamisburg, 110 Ohio St.3d 194 (doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply against political subdivisions performing governmental functions)