SOCIETY NATIONAL BANK, APPELLANT, v. WOOD COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES.
No. 97-1058
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Submitted October 28, 1997—Decided April 22, 1998.
81 Ohio St.3d 401 | 1998-Ohio-436
Taxation—Real property valuation—Standing of former owner to file a complaint seeking a decrease in the true value of the property—R.C. 5715.13, construed and applied. APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 96-J-599.
{¶ 2} The first question on the complaint form filed by Society asked for the “Owner of property.” In response, Society answered, “Society National Bank f.n.a. as Toledo Trust Company [Owner as of 1-1-95].” In response to the second question on the complaint form that asked for the “Complainant if other than owner,” Society responded, “N/A.” Elsewhere in the complaint Society stated that the decrease requested was justified because of a recent sale of the property, and that it was “permitted to refile under
{¶ 3} Counsel for Society appeared at the BOR hearing, but she did not present any witnesses. She presented, in addition to the complaint and the attached settlement statement, an executed copy of the Offer to Purchase Real Property and Acceptance for the property, dated October 11, 1995, and an appraisal of the property prepared for Society prior to the sale.
“All real property taxes and assessments, both general and special, which are a lien and are due and payable prior to the Closing Date shall be paid by Seller. All real property taxes and assessments, both general and special, which are a lien but not yet due and payable against the Premises as of the Closing Date and thereafter, shall be prorated between Seller and Purchaser as of the Closing Date.”
{¶ 5} The settlement statement indicates that the buyer received a credit for a “Tax Proration from 01/01/95 thru 12/29/95.”
{¶ 6} The BOR dismissed Society‘s complaint, stating that Society had filed a complaint for the same property in the same triennial period in violation of
{¶ 7} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
Arter & Hadden and Karen H. Bauernschmidt, for appellant.
Teaford, Rich & Wheeler and James R. Gorry, for appellees Wood County Board of Revision and Wood County Auditor.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 8} Society contends that it met all the requirements of
{¶ 10}
“Any person owning taxable real property in the county or in a taxing district with territory in the county * * * may file such a complaint regarding any such determination affecting any real property in the county * * *.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 11}
“The county board of revision shall not decrease any valuation complained of unless the party affected thereby or his agent makes and files with the board a written application * * *.”
{¶ 12} The thrust of Society‘s argument is that it was a “party affected,” within the meaning of
{¶ 13} While Society‘s argument primarily focuses on
{¶ 14} In Am. Restaurant & Lunch Co. v. Glander (1946), 147 Ohio St. 147, 34 O.O. 8, 70 N.E.2d 93, at paragraph one of the syllabus, we held, “Where a statute
{¶ 15} When a person files a complaint against the property of another, the burden is on that person to prove that he or she has standing. For instance, in Middleton, where a nonowner attempted to file a complaint against the valuation of another‘s real property, the complainant was “an owner of taxable property in [the county].” Id. at 226, 658 N.E.2d at 267. Here, although Society owned the property in question on the tax lien date, January 1, 1995, and owned it until title was transferred on December 29, 1995, it did not own the property at the time it filed the complaint. Thus it became Society‘s burden to prove that it owned other taxable real property in the county at the time it filed its complaint. However, Society did not offer any evidence at the BOR hearing or before the BTA to prove that at the time it filed its complaint it owned other taxable real property in the county.
{¶ 16} If Society had proven that it was a “person owning taxable real property in the county,” then a consideration of the elements of
{¶ 17} Society also contends that because the BTA denied it the opportunity to be heard, it has been deprived of due process of law under the Ohio and United States Constitutions. We disagree.
{¶ 18} Society claims that its property tax payment has been taken and it has been denied the opportunity to contest the amount of the payment or to even be heard on the issue. Society‘s claim that it paid the taxes for most of tax year 1995 is not evidenced in the record. Society claims that it paid most of the 1995 taxes by crediting the buyer with the amount of the prorated taxes at the closing, pursuant to the purchase contract. However, there is no claim that Society actually made any payments for the 1995 taxes to the county treasurer. The credit for prorated taxes was given by Society pursuant to private agreement between the buyer and the seller, not pursuant to any law. Therefore, Society was not deprived of any property by governmental action that could serve as the basis for its claim of lack of due process.
{¶ 19} Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons the dismissal of the appeal by the BTA was reasonable and lawful and is therefore affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
RESNICK, J., not participating.