Corex Partners, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of RevisionCorex Partners, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
On brief: Wood Law Limited., and Robert C. Wood, for appellees Chou Katella Partners, LLC, and Corex Partners, LLC. Argued: Robert C. Wood
On brief: Rich & Gillis Law Group, LLC, Mark H. Gillis, and Richelle L. Thoburn, for appellant. Argued: Mark H. Gillis.
APPEAL from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals
BEATTY BLUNT, J.
{¶ 1} Westerville City Schools Board of Education (“Appellant“) appeals the April 17, 2019 decision of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA“) reversing the September 6, 2018 decision of the Franklin County Board of Revision (“BOR“) to deny the hearing request of Corex Partners, L.L.C./Chou Katella Partners, L.L.C. (“Corex“) and to
{¶ 2} Pursuant to
{¶ 3} Corex owned the office building during the challenged tax years 2014 and 2015. The Franklin County Auditor initially valued the property for those years at $4.5 million per year. Corex challenged those valuations to the BOR under
{¶ 4} The BTA‘s decision to reverse and remand the BOR‘s October 2016 decision in Corex I was premised on its earlier decision in MDM Holdings, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, BTA No. 2015-60, 2015 Ohio Tax LEXIS 2480 (June 2, 2015) that continuing-complaint jurisdiction under
{¶ 5} Apparently inspired by MDM Holdings, rather than appealing this court‘s decision in Corex II to the Supreme Court, Corex “asked the BOR for another continuing complaint hearing on the same tax years.” (See BOR Case No. 11-004240 dismissal letter (Sept. 6, 2018).) The BOR dismissed the continuing complaint “due to a continuing
{¶ 6} Appellant asserts ten errors with the BTA‘s decision in Corex III, which it narrows to 2 issues of law:
[I]. The BTA‘s decision is unlawful because it allows the Property Owners to re-litigate tax years which were finally determined by this Court on May 4, 2018.[II].
R.C. 5715.19(D) does not permit multiple continuing complaint requests from the same original complaint or for the same tax years.
{¶ 7} “When reviewing a BTA decision, we determine whether the decision is reasonable and lawful; if it is both, we must affirm.” NWD 300 Spring, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 151 Ohio St.3d 193, 2017-Ohio-7579, ¶ 13 (citing
If a complaint filed under this section for the current year is not determined by the board within the time prescribed for such determination, the complaint and any proceedings in relation thereto shall be continued by the board as a valid complaint for any ensuing year until such complaint is finally determined by the board or upon any appeal from a decision of the board. In such case, the original complaint shall continue in effect without further filing by the original taxpayer, the original taxpayer‘s assignee, or any other person or entity authorized to file a complaint under this section.
(Emphasis added.) Accordingly, under the statute a county board of revision may exercise “continuing-complaint” jurisdiction over a real-property-valuation dispute under
{¶ 9} In its decision holding that the BOR had continuing-complaint jurisdiction over tax years 2014 and 2015, the BTA concluded that under the Supreme Court‘s decision in Life Path Partners, 2018-Ohio-230, ¶ 10, it was “unable to find that the statute bars appellant‘s continuing complaint hearing request as untimely,” and that under the court‘s decision in MDM Holdings, Inc., 2018-Ohio-541, ¶ 9, the BTA was precluded from “impos[ing] stricter requirements than the statute imposes.”
[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly held this board cannot impose requirements not explicitly found in
R.C. 5715.19 . * * * Here, we are unable to find the statute bars appellant‘scontinuing complaint hearing request as untimely; we cannot impose stricter requirements than the statute imposes. [Further, we find that] [r]es judicata does not apply in this case given [the] nature of our decision in [Corex I].
[O]ur decision in [Corex I] was a jurisdictional determination, not a merit determination of value. * * * [O]ur decision in [Corex I] vacated the decision of the BOR. * * * As a consequence, today, there is no authoritative BOR decision alive and well for tax years 2014 and 2015.
* * *
Per Life Path and MDM, we hold the BOR must consider the value of [the parcel] for tax years 2014 and 2015 * * *.
Corex III at 3. Appellant admits that the BTA‘s decision in Corex I “was not a merit determination of value,” but argues that this court‘s May 3, 2018 memorandum decision in Corex II, which dismissed the appeal of the BTA decision, constitutes a “final determination” of appellant‘s valuation challenge for tax years 2014 and 2015. Appellant therefore contends that further litigation over appellant‘s valuation challenge is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and by the law of the case. Appellant also contends that despite the fact that “there is no BOR decision alive and well for tax years 2014 and 2015,” the plain language of
{¶ 10} Neither appellant nor Corex have identified case law interpreting the
{¶ 11} While Corex‘s argument is clever, it fails to account for our dismissal of its appeal of Corex I and its own decision to refrain from appealing that judgment. Instead, we agree with appellant—the BTA was barred from ordering the BOR to revalue the property for tax years 2014 and 2105. The doctrine of res judicata provides that “[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995), syllabus, cited in Lowe‘s Home Ctr., Inc. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 154 Ohio St.3d 463, 2018-Ohio-1974, ¶ 33. Res judicata includes “claim preclusion,” Grava at 381, which “holds that a valid, final judgment on the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” Dehlendorf v. Ritchey, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-87, 2012-Ohio-5193, ¶ 13, citing Grava at syllabus. The Supreme Court held in Grava that ” ‘an existing final judgment or decree between the parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims which were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit’ ” and noted that ” ‘the doctrine of res judicata requires a plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the first action, or be forever barred from asserting it.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 382, quoting Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60, 62 (1990). Similarly, the law-of-the-case doctrine ensures that the decision of a reviewing
{¶ 12} Notably, the BTA decision in Corex III is totally silent as to the effect of our decision dismissing Corex II. Instead, the BTA simply notes that Corex I “was never overturned or modified by any higher court, neither the Tenth District or the Ohio Supreme Court” and then goes on to directly reconsider its decision in Corex I, which vacated the BOR‘s determination regarding tax years 2014 and 2015. Corex III, 2019 Ohio Tax LEXIS 809 at *3 (“[T]he BOR must consider the value of [the] parcel * * * for tax years 2014 and 2015, because [Corex et al.] have requested that of the BOR and because there is no active decision of the BOR on those years.“). But our dismissal of Corex II was not based on the BOR‘s tax valuations or on the BTA‘s action in vacating those valuations; it was based on a jurisdictional flaw for which Corex alone was responsible. Corex failed to serve the BOR and the Franklin County Auditor with copies of its notice of appeal, and in Corex I we observed that “[t]he requirements for perfecting an appeal under
{¶ 14} In short, Corex made the same argument in Corex III that it already presented in Corex I, and unsuccessfully attempted to present in Corex II. Had Corex appealed our dismissal in Corex II and prevailed, it would have been entitled to revaluation on remand. Instead, it chose to start over with the BOR, but the BTA is not authorized to reconsider the merits of its decisions after they have been appealed. Res judicata and the law-of-the-case doctrine operate to preclude relitigation of any issue that was or could have been determined by a decision in that case, and that includes the argument that Corex presents here. For these reasons, appellant‘s assignments of error are sustained. The decision of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the Board for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.
Decision reversed and remanded.
BROWN and DORRIAN, JJ., concur.