Ross v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
121 N.E.3d 365
Ohio2018Background
- Thomas and Nancy Ross filed a valuation complaint with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) challenging the 2015 tax valuation; BOR issued a decision on Sept. 28, 2016, maintaining the valuation.
- The Rosses filed a DTE Form 4 notice of appeal with the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) on Sept. 29, 2016; BTA docketed the appeal and set a hearing date.
- On Oct. 27, 2016, the Rosses’ attorney attended a BOR public meeting, spoke orally, and submitted a written public comment but did not expressly label it as a notice of appeal or deliver a formal notice to the BOR at that time.
- On Nov. 1, 2016 (34 days after BOR mailed its decision), the Rosses submitted a copy of their DTE Form 4 to the BOR.
- The BOR and the fiscal officer moved to dismiss at the BTA, arguing the Rosses failed to timely file a notice of appeal with the BOR as required by R.C. 5717.01; the BTA dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Rosses appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing (1) their oral and written submissions at the BOR satisfied the statutory filing requirement, and (2) the BTA should have held an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction/due process grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ross timely filed a notice of appeal with the BOR under R.C. 5717.01 | Ross: attorney’s oral comments and written submission at BOR meeting substantially complied and amounted to filing | BOR/fiscal officer: statute requires an actual filing/delivery to BOR within 30 days; oral comment/written public comment are insufficient | Held: Not timely. Filing requires physical delivery and an identifiable notice of appeal; oral comment and written submission did not satisfy statute |
| Whether the BTA’s docketing letter substitutes for the required filing with the BOR | Ross: BTA’s docketing showed an appeal was filed and should relieve duty to file with BOR | Respondents: BTA has no statutory duty to notify BOR; appellants cannot substitute BTA’s acts for statutory requirements | Held: BTA docketing does not excuse statutory dual filing requirement; appellants still required to file with BOR |
| Whether the BTA was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional issue / whether due process required a hearing | Ross: factual dispute (testimony could show timely filing); due process required hearing | Respondents: no material factual dispute; statute and BTA rules permit ruling without hearing when pointless | Held: No hearing required; no material fact would change outcome and process given was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- AP Hotels of Illinois, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 118 Ohio St.3d 343 (Ohio 2008) (rules on judicial notice and timely presentation of evidence)
- Groveport Madison Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 137 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2013) (statutory jurisdictional questions reviewed de novo)
- Austin Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 46 Ohio St.3d 192 (Ohio 1989) (BTA lacks jurisdiction if notices are not timely filed with both BTA and BOR)
- Hope v. Highland Cty. Bd. of Revision, 56 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio 1990) (failure to comply with R.C. 5717.01’s dual filing is fatal to appeal)
- Consolidated Freightways, Inc. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 21 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1986) (evidentiary hearing required when jurisdictional issue turns on contested factual sworn testimony)
- L.J. Smith, Inc. v. Harrison Cty. Bd. of Revision, 140 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2014) (a filing requires physical delivery to and receipt by the proper official)
- Elkem Metals Co., Ltd. Partnership v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 81 Ohio St.3d 683 (Ohio 1998) (filing connotes delivery to and receipt by proper official)
- Brown v. Levin, 119 Ohio St.3d 335 (Ohio 2008) (BTA may deny hearing when additional evidence would accomplish nothing)