SALEM MEDICAL ARTS & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. COLUMBIANA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES.
No. 97-993
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
January 7, 1998
80 Ohio St.3d 621 | 1998-Ohio-657
Submitted October 28, 1997. APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 96-M-1397.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Salem Medical Arts & Development Corporation (“Salem“), filed a real property valuation complaint with the Columbiana County Board of Revision (“BOR“) seeking to reduce the valuation of its property for tax year 1995. The BOR granted a reduction in value, but Sаlem, not being satisfied with the amount of the reduction, attempted to appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA“). Salem timеly filed a notice of appeal with the BTA and sent a copy of the notice to the assistant county prosecutor, with whom Salem‘s counsel had been negotiating a settlement. Salem did not file a copy of the notice of appeal with the BOR.
{¶ 2} At the BTA, the appellees, Columbiana County Auditor and the BOR, moved to dismiss the appeal, alleging that Salem had failed to file a copy of its notice of appeal with the BOR, as required by
{¶ 3} The BTA found that Salem did not file a copy of its notice of appeal with the BOR and granted appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
{¶ 4} This matter is now before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.
Robert L. Guehl, for appellant.
Robert L. Herron, Columbiana County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew A. Beech, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 5}
“Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal, either in person or by certified mail, with the board of tax appeals and with the county board of revision. * * * Upon receipt of such notice of appeal such county board of revision shall by certified mail notify all persons thereof who were parties to the proceeding before such county board of revision, and shall file proof of such noticе with the board of tax appeals. The county board of revision shall thereupon certify to the board of tax appeаls a transcript of the record of the proceedings of the county board of revision pertaining to the original complаint, and all evidence offered in connection therewith.”
{¶ 6} The issue presented here is whether the statutory language in
{¶ 7} In Austin Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 192, 546 N.E.2d 404, a case factually similar to the present one, the taxpayers filed their notices of appeаl with the BTA and, like the appellant in this case, failed to file copies of the notices with the board of revision. Within the thirty-day apрeal period the BTA sent copies of its docketing letters to the Cuyahoga County Auditor, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor and the Tаx Commissioner‘s tax equalization division. Despite the lack of the filing, the board of revision in Austin, as did the BOR in this case, filed statutory transcripts with the BTA but nоted the lack of filing of the notices of appeal.
{¶ 8} We affirmed the BTA‘s dismissal in Austin because “timely filing a copy of the notice of appeаl with the board provides that agency with the statutory notice of appeal.” Id. at 194, 546 N.E.2d at 406. According to
{¶ 9} Salem argues that delivering a copy of the notice of aрpeal to the assistant prosecutor satisfies the filing requirement. Filing a copy of the notice of appeal with the boаrd of revision is, however, a different requirement from serving a copy of pleadings upon the board‘s attorney after litigation has bеgun at the BTA.
{¶ 10} Salem also contends that Civ.R. 5 and S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2) support its position that a copy of its notice of appeal may be filed with counsel for the board of revision rather than with the board of revision itself. We disagree.
{¶ 11} Salem‘s contention ignores the dual status of a board of revision in an appeal to the BTA, where the board is both the deciding tribunal whose decision is being appealed and the party appellee. R.R.Z. Assoc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 527 N.E.2d 874. The need for service upon counsel for the board of revision arises only after there has been a proper filing of the notice of appeal with the board of revision and the BTA.
{¶ 12} Finally, Salem contends that because the BOR did not maintain a separate office, its filing of the notice of appeal with the assistant county prosecutor was appropriate. Again we disаgree.
{¶ 13} If there was no separately maintained office for the board of revision, then Salem could have filed its notice of appeal with the auditor.
{¶ 14} For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the BTA because it is reasonable and lawful.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.