North Campus Rentals, LLC, Appellant-Appellee, v. Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees-Appellants.
No. 14AP-465 (C.P.C. No. 14CV-2973)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
March 17, 2015
2015-Ohio-985
BROWN, P.J.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on March 17, 2015
Graff & McGovern, LPA, Douglas E. Graff, and Levi J. Tkach, for appellee.
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and William J. Stehle, for appellants.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
BROWN, P.J.
{¶ 1} Franklin County Board of Revision (“board“) and Franklin County Auditor (“auditor“), appellants, appeal the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in which the court denied appellants’ motion to dismiss and remanded the matter to the board.
{¶ 2} For purposes of this appeal, many of the underlying details of the case are not relevant. North Campus Rentals, LLC, appellee, owns real property in Columbus, Ohio. In response to the auditor‘s change of tax classification for the property, appellee filed a complaint with the board asserting that the property should be reclassified.
You may appeal this decision by filing the proper notice of appeal with either the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, (
O.R.C. 5717.01 ), or with the Court of Common Pleas, (O.R.C. 5717.05 ). Such appeals must be filed within 30 days after the mailing of this notice.
{¶ 4}
{¶ 5} On March 18, 2014, appellee filed a notice of appeal with the common pleas court and instructed the clerk of courts to serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the board by certified mail. However, appellee did not take any other action to file the notice of appeal with the board. On March 20, 2014, the clerk of courts mailed a copy of the notice of appeal to the board via certified mail, and the certified mail was delivered to the board on March 24, 2014.
{¶ 6} Appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because appellee did not file a timely notice of appeal with the board. The common pleas court denied the motion to dismiss. The court found that, although appellee did not invoke the jurisdiction of the court because it failed to strictly adhere to the filing requirements of
[I.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF NORTH CAMPUS RENTALS LLC.
[II.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE BOARD OF REVISION DECISION LETTERS WERE “INCOMPLETE, LEGALLY INCORRECT, AND..QUITE MISLEADING.”
[III.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REMANDING TO THE FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION.
{¶ 7} We will address appellants’ first and second assignments of error together, as they are related. Appellants argue in their first assignment of error that the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss appellee‘s appeal for failing to comply with
{¶ 8} As indicated above,
{¶ 9} However, the court then found that the board improperly instructed appellee in its decision regarding the methods by which appellee could perfect its appeal. The court indicated that, although it is not the board‘s obligation to walk a property owner through the appeals process, fundamental fairness and due process demand that the board not intentionally, inadvertently or actively mislead a potential appellant. The court indicated that it was not enough for the board to make parenthetical references to
{¶ 10} We find the common pleas court erred when it failed to dismiss appellee‘s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ” ‘[A]n appeal, the right of which is conferred by statute, can be perfected only in the mode prescribed by statute. The exercise of the right conferred is conditioned upon compliance with the accompanying mandatory requirements.’ ” Holm v. Clark Cty. Auditor, 168 Ohio App.3d 119, 2006-Ohio-3748, ¶ 4 (2d Dist.), quoting Great N. Partnership v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (July 19, 1990), 8th Dist. No. 57277. ” ‘[T]he filing of a notice of appeal with the board is jurisdictional, and not merely procedural.’ ” Id., quoting Great N. Partnership (referring to requirements under
{¶ 11} However, despite the conceded jurisdictional defect, the common pleas court in the present case ultimately concluded that it was unfair to dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction because the information contained in the board‘s decision was incomplete, legally incorrect, and misleading. Even assuming arguendo that an appellate-rights notice in a board‘s decision that is incomplete, legally incorrect, and misleading can excuse the mandatory jurisdictional prerequisites under
{¶ 12} Appellants argue in their third assignment of error that the trial court erred when it remanded the matter to the board. Because we have sustained appellants’ first and second assignments of error, appellants’ third assignment of error is rendered moot.
{¶ 13} Accordingly, we sustain appellants’ first and second assignments of error, and find appellants’ third assignment of error moot. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and we remand this matter to that court to issue an order granting appellants’ motion to dismiss.
Judgment reversed; cause remanded with instructions.
TYACK and KLATT, JJ., concur.
___________________