HK New Plan Exchange Property Owner II, L.L.C. v. Hamilton County Board of Revision
903 N.E.2d 643
Ohio
2009
Check Treatment

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LAWRENCE, APPELLANT.

No. 2008-0844

Supreme Court of Ohio

March 18, 2009

121 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2009-Ohio-1112

Submitted February 17, 2009

{¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

Robin N. Piper, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael A. Oster Jr., Chief, Appellate Division, and Gloria J. Sigman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Repper, Pagan, Cook, Ltd., and John H. Forg III, for appellant.

HK NEW PLAN EXCHANGE PROPERTY OWNER II, L.L.C., APPELLEE, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES; CINCINNATI SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT.

No. 2008-1782

Supreme Court of Ohio

March 18, 2009

121 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2009-Ohio-1110

Submitted March 10, 2009

{¶ 1} This case is pending as an appeal as of right from the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA“) pursuant to R.C. 5717.04. Appellee HK New Plan Exchange Property Owner II, L.L.C. (“HK New Plan“) has moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on two grounds. We find that neither ground has merit.

{¶ 2} First, HK New Plan asserts that the appellant, Cincinnati City School District Board of Education (“BOE“), failed to join and serve the Tax Commissioner as an appellee in this matter. In opposing the motion, the BOE has shown that it served the Tax Commissioner with the notice of appeal. We have held that serving the commissioner without explicitly naming that official as an appellee satisfies R.C. 5717.04. .

{¶ 3} Second, HK New Plan claims that the BOE did not comply with R.C. 5717.04, because the BOE did not serve the notice of appeal on a new owner of the property. Attached to the motion to dismiss are a conveyance-fee statement and county records that reflect a sale of the property by HK New Plan to a new owner in early August 2008. The BTA later issued its decision on August 12, 2008, and the BOE filed its appeal to this court on September 9, 2008. The sixth paragraph of R.C. 5717.04 requires an appellant from a BTA decision to serve those persons to whom the BTA is required to certify its decision pursuant to R.C. 5717.03(B). . R.C. 5717.03(B) requires the BTA to certify its decision to the “person in whose name the property is listed, or sought to be listed,” and accordingly R.C. 5717.04 requires that an appellant from the BTA decision serve that person as an appellee. . HK New Plan reasons that R.C. 5717.04 required the BOE to serve the entity to which HK New Plan sold the property about a week before the BTA issued its decision.

{¶ 4} HK New Plan is mistaken. Pursuant to , R.C. 5717.03(B) does not require the BTA to certify its decision to a new owner of the property unless the record before the BTA shows that person to be the owner of the property. (BTA must certify its decision to “the person whom the record shows to be the owner of the property as of the time that the BTA was required to certify its decision” [emphasis added]). In the present case, the BTA issued its decision on August 12, 2008—about a week after the latest sale. The record before the BTA did not disclose the latest sale of the property at the time the BTA issued its decision. As a result, the BTA had no obligation to certify its decision to HK New Plan‘s purchaser, and thus the BOE as appellant had no obligation to serve the new owner as an appellee.

{¶ 5} The motion to dismiss is denied.

Motion denied.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

Siegel, Siegel, Johnson & Jennings Co., L.P.A., Nicholas M.J. Ray, and Jay P. Siegel, for appellee.

David C. DiMuzio, Inc., and David C. DiMuzio, for appellant.

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. EMERSON.

No. 2009-0234

Supreme Court of Ohio

March 19, 2009

121 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2009-Ohio-1541

Submitted March 12, 2009

{¶ 1} This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in accordance with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F).

{¶ 2} On January 30, 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of Kentucky entered January 22, 2009, in , suspending respondent for a period of 181 days. On February 11, 2009, this court ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state. Respondent filed no response to the show cause order. This cause was considered by the court and on consideration thereof,