STRONGSVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT, v. ZAINO, TAX COMMR., ET AL., APPELLEES. EHRNFELT, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF STRONGSVILLE, APPELLANT, v. ZAINO, TAX COMMR., ET AL., APPELLEES.
Nos. 00-841 and 00-842
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Submitted April 25, 2001—Decided August 15, 2001.
92 Ohio St.3d 488, 2001-Ohio-1269
PFEIFER, J.
Taxation—Real property—Application for exemption—R.C. 5715.27, applied—Decisions of Board of Tax Appeals dismissing complaints objecting to application for exemption reasonable and lawful, when. APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 99-A-351 and 99-A-350.
Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On July 7, 1998, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation (“Clinic“) filed an application with the Tax Commissioner to exempt from taxation certain real property in the Strongsville school district. The commissioner sent a notice dated August 24, 1998, to the Strongsville Board of Education (“BOE“), stating that an application for exemption of the property had been filed. Pursuant to
{¶ 3} On December 29, 1998, the commissioner received letters dated December 28, 1998, from the BOE and Walter F. Ehrnfelt, Mayor of Strongsville (“Ehrnfelt“), objecting to the application for exemption filed by the Clinic. In their
{¶ 4} By journal entry of February 8, 1999, the commissioner found that the BOE‘s December 28, 1998 letter was a complaint filed pursuant to
{¶ 5} The commissioner dismissed Ehrnfelt‘s complaint for the same reasons that he dismissed the BOE‘s complaint, stating that as filed under
{¶ 6} The BOE and Ehrnfelt appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals. The BTA ruled against both the BOE and Ehrnfelt on the basis that
{¶ 7} These causes are now before the court upon appeals as of right.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 8} The BOE contends that it properly invoked the jurisdiction of the commissioner to participate in the exemption proceedings. We disagree.
{¶ 9} The relevant statutes for filing and contesting an application for exemption are
{¶ 10} Pursuant to
{¶ 11} In its appeal to this court, the BOE has dropped any claim that its letters to the commissioner constitute a complaint. Here, the BOE claims that the commissioner should have accepted its letters as a statement of its intent to participate.
{¶ 12}
{¶ 13} But here, the BOE made no attempt to extend the filing date until after it had passed. Not until its January 12, 1999 letter did the BOE finally characterize its filing as a statement of intent to participate. At the same time, the BOE first invoked the Tax Commissioner‘s authority to extend the filing deadline.
{¶ 14} An ” ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court‘s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 16 O.O.3d 169, 173, 404 N.E.2d 144, 149. We are convinced that the Tax Commissioner‘s interpretation of
{¶ 15} In his appeal, Ehrnfelt contends that since he filed his complaint before December 31, 1998, he filed a valid complaint under
{¶ 16}
“A complaint may also be filed with the commissioner by any person, board, or officer authorized by section 5715.19 of the Revised Code to file complaints with the county board of revision against the continued exemption of any property.”
{¶ 17}
“An application for exemption and a complaint against exemption shall be filed prior to the thirty-first day of December of the tax year for which exemption is requested or for which the liability of any property to taxation in that year is requested * * *.”
{¶ 18}
{¶ 19} The term “continued exemption” contained in
{¶ 20} Therefore, the only complaint that can be filed under
{¶ 21} However, it is
{¶ 22} Ehrnfelt‘s contention ignores both
{¶ 23} Prior to the 1985 amendment of
{¶ 24} Ehrnfelt also contends that his right to due process has been violated. However, Ehrnfelt did not raise any constitutional issue of due process in his notice of appeal to the BTA and thus waived the issue. In Cleveland Gear Co. v. Limbach (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 229, 520 N.E.2d 188, this court held: “The question of whether a tax statute is unconstitutional when applied to a particular state of facts must be raised in the notice of appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals * * *.” Paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶ 25} Therefore, under the facts of this case, neither appellant had the right to participate in the hearing on the Clinic‘s application for exemption. While Ehrnfelt never had the right to participate, the BOE had the right but failed to exercise it in a timely manner. Accordingly, we find the decisions of the BTA to be reasonable and lawful, and they are hereby affirmed.
Decisions affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
Kolick & Kondzer and Daniel J. Kolick, for appellants.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, James C. Sauer and Janyce C. Katz, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee Tax Commissioner.
Arter & Hadden, L.L.P., Bernard J. Smith AND Irene C. Keyse-Walker, for appellee The Cleveland Clinic Foundation.