Lead Opinion
{¶ 1} Thе issue presented for review on this appeal is whether a condominium owners’ association is the proper party to contest a county auditor’s tax assessment for the common areas of a condominium.
{¶ 2} The Village Condominiums Owners Association (“VCOA”) is a nonprofit corporаtion composed of the 31 condominium unit owners of Village Condominiums in the city of Vandalia, a suburban community approximately ten miles north of Dayton. The Declaration of Condominium Ownership states that VCOA was “organized to administer the Condominium Property in all respects, as provided in the Deсlaration and By-Laws.” Those documents identify the association’s duties as managing, maintaining, repairing, and replacing the property’s common areas and facilities; paying for utility and personnel services; and purchasing and maintaining fire, liability, workers’ compensation, and extended сoverage insurance.
{¶ 4} The procedural history оf this case reveals that after the auditor determined the taxable value of the common area to be $16,510 for tax year 2001, VCOA filed a complaint with the Montgomery County Board of Revision contesting that valuation. Although the board of revision granted VCOA a reduction in the taxable value from $16,510 to $8,540, VCOA appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”), arguing that the common areas should have had a tax value of zero because that property had already been taxed in full to each of the 31 unit owners who individually own an undivided interest in the entire common area in prоportion to the size of their individual condominiums. The BTA determined that because “[t]here is no evidence that VCOA holds legal title” to property in the county, it lacked standing to file a property-valuation complaint. The court of appeals affirmed the BTA’s decision for the same rеason.
{¶ 5} VCOA appealed, and we accepted the case for discretionary review of the issue whether a condominium owners’ association has standing to contest the tax valuation of real estate that it does not own. VCOA contends that because it is a “person owning рroperty in the county” within the meaning of R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) and because it is a “party affected” within the meaning of R.C. 5715.13, it has standing to file a property-valuation complaint. Alternatively, VCOA asserts that it has standing pursuant to R.C. 5311.20, which permits condominium associations to sue or be sued in actions relating to common areas. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
{¶ 6} VCOA asserts that it has standing to file a real-property-valuation complaint based on its status as an owner pursuant to R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) and its claim that it is a “party affected” within the meaning of R.C. 5715.13. As this court noted in Soc. Natl. Bank v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998),
{¶ 7} In accordance with the first part of the Soc. Natl. Bank test, therefore, to establish standing, VCOA must first dеmonstrate that it is a person owning taxable real property in Montgomery County. The law is well settled regarding ownership of the common areas of a condominium. R.C. 5311.04(A) specifies, “The common [areas and facilities] of a condominium property are oioned by the unit owners as tenants in common, and the ownership shall remain undivided.” (Emphasis added.) See, also, R.C. 5311.25(C) (“The owners of condominium ownership interests that have been sold by the developer * * * shall assume control of the common [areas] and of the unit owners association * * *”). With respect to the taxation of these common areas, R.C. 5311.11 specifies, “Eaсh unit of a condominium property and the undivided interest in the common [areas] * * * is deemed a separate parcel for all purposes of taxation and assessment of real property, and no other unit or other part of the condominium property shall be charged with thе payment of those taxes and assessments.”
{¶ 8} The county auditor’s property records and the declaration do not clearly establish whether Sonnenberg Construction Company or the individual unit owners own the common areas. That uncertainty, however, is irrelevant here, since it is VCOA, not Sonnenberg or the individual unit owners, that filed the property-valuation complaint with the board of revision. And, as explained above, VCOA cannot establish ownership over the common areas. Indeed, Robert E. Kmiecik, counsel for VCOA, conceded as much at the BTA hearing by stating, “[VCOA] is a condominium [and condominiums] aren’t in the business of owning real estate. Condominiums don’t own any real estate. The owners own their undivided shares.” As the BTA indicated, VCOA, after acknowledging that it does not own the common areas, could claim, at most, an equitable interest in the common area, but as this court held in Victoria Plaza Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1999),
{¶ 10} We also reject VCOA’s assertion that R.C. 5311.20 permits the association to contest the valuation of the condominium’s common areas. This court has often noted that “[i]t is a well-established rule of construction that specific provisions prevail over general provisions.” State ex rel. Belknap v. Lavelle (1985),
{¶ 11} For the foregoing reasons, the BTA properly dismissed VCOA’s real-property-valuation complaint for lack of standing, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. This statute also authorizes others to file a complaint, but our concern here is whether VCOA is a “person owning taxable real property in the county.”
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
{¶ 12} Because I believe that the General Assembly intended condominium owners’ associations to have standing under R.C. 5715.19 to challenge the
{¶ 13} The property subject to taxation in this case is the common areas of the Village Condominiums Owners Association (“VCOA”). According to the declarations, the “common areas and facilities” include “[t]he entire land and improvements thereon not included with a Unit.” (Emphasis added.) The auditor sought to tax the common areas of the VCOA. VCOA filed a complaint alleging that the common area is not taxable beсause it has no separate market value. The BTA held that the VCOA has no standing to challenge the valuation of the common areas.
{¶ 14} The majority’s holding is premised upon its understanding that under R.C. 5715.19, VCOA can have standing only if it is the titled owner of the property. But R.C. 5715.19 has no such limitation. In fact, in addition to property owners, R.C. 5715.19 also permits, under certain circumstances, accountants, real estate appraisers, a board of education, a board of township trustees, or even a prosecuting attorney to file a complaint contesting property value. Some of thesе parties act as the owner’s agent.
{¶ 15} The common areas of a condominium property “are owned by the unit owners as tenants in common, and the ownership shall remain undivided.” R.C. 5311.04(A). The common areas are administered by the owners’ association. R.C. 5311.08(A). Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to believe that an owners’ association is the proper entity to represent individual unit owners regarding the valuation of the common areas. If the condominium owners’ association has an obligation to maintain the common areas, which would include any obligation to pay separately assessed real estate taxes and the expenses of the common area, why would it not have the authority to challenge these assessments?
{¶ 16} The owners’ association has authority to sue as a separate legal entity “[i]n any action relating to the cоmmon areas and facilities.” Former R.C. 5311.20, 130 Ohio Laws 1261 (the current statute substitutes “common elements” for “common areas and facilities”). Nowhere in R.C. 5311.20 does the statute state “except for tax assessments.” Further, “[pjursuant to R.C. 5311.20, the unit owners association, on behalf of all unit owners and for each оf them, is the proper party to bring an action for damages pertaining to the common areas sustained by any or all of the unit owners.” Stony Ridge Hill Condominium Owners Assn. v. Auerbach (1979),
{¶ 17} R.C. 1.51 provides: “If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, they shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both. If the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special or local
{¶ 18} The property at issue consists solely of the condominium common areas, which are held by the individual unit owners as tenants in common, each with an undivided percentage interest, and whose titled ownership interests in the common areas are collеctively represented by the association. The 31 unit owners each pay tax on the common area in proportion to the size of their condominium units when they pay their property taxes. The majority’s interpretation leads to an additional assessment, i.e., double taxation.
{¶ 19} Finally, it is logical to conclude that the owners’ association has standing to challenge the valuation of common areas because if the owners’ association does not file such a complaint, then it is left to the individual unit owners. Aside from being onerous, requiring individual unit owners to file individual complaints regarding the common areas could lead to inconsistent results. While a condominium owners’ association as an entity does not own property, it is composed of the owners of the individual units and is authorized to represent the unit owners regarding any legal action pertaining to the common areas.
{¶ 20} Here there are only 31 condominium owners. But in other cases, there could be hundreds of owners. Requiring each individual owner to challenge the valuation of his or her small percentage of the common area valuation would mean that in some casеs individuals would have to file separate complaints over small sums, essentially prohibiting a challenge. Permitting owners’ associations to challenge the valuation of common areas, which is what I believe the General Assembly intended, alleviates the potential problem.
{¶21} For the reasons stated above, I believe that the General Assembly intended that a condominium owners’ association has standing under R.C. 5715.19 to file a complaint challenging the value of the common areas of a condominium property. I invite the General Assembly to amend that provision accordingly if that is indeed its intent. Thus, I respectfully dissent.