Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of RevisionGammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision
{¶ 1} Appellee, Al Gammarino, filed a real property valuation complaint with the Hamilton County Board of Revision (“BOR“) on March 30, 1995 for tax year 1994. The complaint listed the owner of the property as Rex Overstreet and the complainant as Billy McPherson. The complaint listed Gammarino as the complainant‘s agent; Gammarino signed the complaint, apparently as an agent.
{¶ 2} At a hearing before the BOR, inquiry was made into Gammarino‘s relationship with the property, and with Overstreet and McPherson. Gammarino told the BOR that he was appearing in his capacity as “a Real Estate Broker Agent for Mr. McPherson or Mr. Overstreet,” and that he filed the complaint at Overstreet‘s and McPherson‘s request. Gammarino said he had had a principal/agent relationship with Overstreet in past years, but had no current relationship. As to McPherson, Gammarino said he had not represented him as a broker. Gammarino admitted that he did not manage the property or take care of the utilities.
{¶ 3} The BOR dismissed the complaint for being improperly filed. In response to the dismissal, Gammarino filed an appeal with the Board of Tax
{¶ 4} The BTA found that, although Gammarino named himself as the appellant in the notice of appeal to the BTA, he was not a party to the proceedings before the BOR. Instead, the BTA found Gammarino was merely an “agent” who had filed the complaint for other individuals. The BTA sua sponte substituted Overstreet as the real party in interest. The BTA also found that McPherson had no ownership interest in the property that would permit him to file a complaint. Finally, the BTA found Gammarino‘s explanation “plausible,” and held that the underlying complaint was filed on behalf of both McPherson and Overstreet. Consequently, the BTA reversed and remanded the matter to the BOR for a determination of value.
{¶ 5} The Hamilton County Auditor has filed an appeal as of right with this court.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} Appellant raises two primary arguments: that an unrelated lay person may not file and prosecute a complaint before a board of revision, and that such representation by a lay person constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
{¶ 7} Appellees have not filed briefs with this court.
{¶ 8} Subsequent to the BTA‘s decision in this matter on January 3, 1997, we decided Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932, which involved a real estate valuation complaint filed with a board of revision by a nonattorney. In Sharon Village Ltd., the sole question before us was whether a nonlawyer-agent filing complaints with a board of revision was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. After reviewing the procedures before a board of revision and exploring some of the ramifications of filing a complaint, we interpreted the term “agent” in
{¶ 9} The facts of the present case and our decision in Sharon Village Ltd. require us to hold that Gammarino was not an “agent” within the meaning of
{¶ 10} In Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 235, 67 O.O.2d 296, 298, 313 N.E.2d 14, 16, we held that “full compliance with
{¶ 11} Because our decision upholds the BOR‘s dismissal of Gammarino‘s complaint for lack of jurisdiction, we decline to address the remaining arguments raised by appellant concerning procedural issues arising subsequent to the BOR‘s decision.
{¶ 12} Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, the decision of the BTA requiring the BOR to make a determination as to the value of the property is unreasonable and unlawful, and it is reversed.
Decision reversed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.