BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WORTHINGTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE, v. BOARD OF REVISION OF FRANKLIN COUNTY ET AL.; AMERITECH CORPORATION, APPELLANT. MIRGE CORPORATION, D.B.A. ELECTRICAL MECHANICS, APPELLANT, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. BISSETT STEEL COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. CLEVELAND HEIGHTS/UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. (TWO APPEALS.)
Nos. 97-1880, 97-2423, 98-704, 98-758 and 98-984
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
March 31, 1999
85 Ohio St.3d 156 | 1999-Ohio-449
Taxation—Real property valuation—Complaint seeking decrease in valuation—Jurisdiction of board of revision to consider complaint.
[Cite as Worthington City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 1999-Ohio-449.]
(Nos. 97-1880, 97-2423, 98-704, 98-758 and 98-984—Submitted January 13, 1999—Decided March 31, 1999.)
APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 96-D-1218, 97-P-1026, 96-P-959, and 95-D-1124 through 95-D-1130.
Case No. 97-1880
{¶ 1} Ameritech Corporation, appellant, is the owner of the sole share of stock issued by the Ohio Bell Telephone Company. Under the terms of a “Close Corporation Agreement” between Ameritech Corporation and Ohio Bell, Ameritech Corporation is to manage the business and affairs of Ohio Bell and “may exercise all such powers of [Ohio Bell] and do all such lawful acts and things as [Ohio Bell] might do.”
Case No. 97-2423
{¶ 3} Mirge Corporation, d.b.a. Electrical Mechanics, appellant, is an Ohio corporation. Mirge Corporation‘s vice president, Walter Higginbothan, prepared, signed, and filed with the Hamilton County Board of Revision a complaint on the assessment of real property owned by the corporation. Higginbothan is not a lawyer. The board of revision, relying on Sharon Village, 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932, concluded that Higginbothan had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in having prepared, signed, and filed the complaint and, thus, dismissed the
Case No. 98-704
{¶ 4} The Bissett Steel Company, appellant, is an Ohio corporation that owns real property in Cuyahoga County. Barbara Bissett (“Bissett“) is the president and chief executive officer of the corporation. Bissett owns seventy-six percent of the common shares and thirty-five percent of the preferred shares of the corporation. In 1995, Bissett prepared and filed with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision a complaint on the assessment of real property owned by the corporation, seeking a reduction in the assessed valuation. The complaint bears Bissett‘s signature with her indicated “Title of Office” as “President” of the corporation. Bissett is not a lawyer. The board of revision, acting on the complaint, issued a decision not to change the assessed value of the property. On appeal, the BTA, relying on Sharon Village, 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932, found that Bissett had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in having prepared, signed, and filed the complaint. Therefore, the BTA remanded the matter to the board of revision with instructions to dismiss that complaint. The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Case Nos. 98-758 and 98-984
{¶ 5} In March 1995, Melvin S. Ross and Daryl B. Ross filed with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision several complaints on the assessment of real property, seeking reductions in the taxable value of parcels owned by them. The Cleveland Heights/University Heights Board of Education, appellant, is a school board. The school board‘s treasurer, Robert Burmeister, prepared, signed, and filed with the board of revision several counter-complaints in response to the Rosses’ original complaints. Each of the counter-complaints bore Burmeister‘s signature with his indicated “Title of Office” as “Treasurer.” Burmeister is not a lawyer. The board of revision granted the Rosses’ requests for reductions in the assessed values
“As a matter of law, Mr. Burmeister‘s preparation, signing and filing the counter-complaints on behalf of the [board of education amounted to the unauthorized practice of law]. It is established that the preparation and filing of a complaint pursuant to
R.C. 5715.13 and5715.19(A) , or a counter-complaint pursuant to the authority provided byR.C. 5715.19(B) , constitut[e] the practice of law. * * * [Citing, among other authorities, Sharon Village, 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932.]“In the context of the present cases, the personal activities of Mr. Burmeiste[r] involved in the preparation, signing and filing of the counter-complaints on behalf of the Cleveland Heights/University Heights Board of Education, constituted the unauthorized practice of law by that person in his capacity as a corporate officer, not as an attorney at law. A corporate body cannot act through its corporate officers rather than through an attorney at law to maintain litigation on the corporation‘s behalf. Union Savings Assn. v. Home Owners Aid, Inc. (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 60 [52 O.O.2d 329, 262 N.E.2d 558].
“The BOE‘s [board of education‘s] complaints were jurisdictionally defective. The BOE therefore never became a complainant before the BOR [board of revision]. Consequently, the BOR was never empowered to consider the merits of its counter-complaints. Sharon Village, supra.
” * * *
“The [BTA] finds and determines, upon the record and as a matter of law, that the BOE lacked a right of appeal to this Board from the decisions of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision since it never became a party complainant in the proceedings before that Board.”
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Charles F. Glander, Jerry O. Allen, Mark A. Engel, Mary L. Robins and Mark A. Hamilton, for appellee Board of Education of Worthington City School District in case No. 97-1880.
Treneff & Williams and Craig P. Treneff; Nicola, Gudbranson & Cooper and Matthew T. Fitzsimmons; Dean H. Bilton and John M. Brannigan, pro hac vice, for appellant Ameritech Corporation in case No. 97-1880.
Klaine, Wiley, Hoffmann & Minutolo and Franklin A. Klaine, Jr., for appellant Mirge Corporation in case No. 97-2423.
Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee Hamilton County Auditor in case No. 97-2423.
Wood & Lamping, L.L.P., and David C. DiMuzio, for appellee Cincinnati School District Board of Education in case No. 97-2423.
Arter & Hadden and Karen H. Bauernschmidt, for appellant Bissett Steel Company in case No. 98-704.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy J. Kollin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Cuyahoga County Board of Revision and Cuyahoga County Auditor in case No. 98-704.
Kolick & Kondzer, Daniel J. Kolick and John P. Desimone, for appellant Cleveland Heights/University Heights Board of Education in case Nos. 98-758 and 98-984.
DOUGLAS, J.
{¶ 7} In Sharon Village, 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932, syllabus, we held that “[t]he preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision on behalf of a taxpayer constitute the practice of law.” Thus, an attorney, or the owner of the property, must prepare and file the complaint. Additionally, in Union Savings Assn., 23 Ohio St.2d 60, 62, 52 O.O.2d 329, 330, 262 N.E.2d 558, 559, this court observed that “[a] corporation is an artificial person, created by the General Assembly and deriving its power, authority and capacity from the statutes.” We held that “[a] corporation cannot maintain litigation in propria persona, or appear in court through an officer of the corporation or an appointed agent not admitted to the practice of law.” Id. at syllabus.
I
{¶ 8} In case No. 97-1880, Treneff, an attorney, prepared and filed or caused to be filed the complaint at issue. This satisfies the requirements of Sharon Village. The fact that Ameritech Corporation‘s property tax manager, Gregory A. Stein, reviewed and signed the prepared complaint is not fatal. Stein simply reviewed the prepared complaint to verify the accuracy of the information contained therein, and he signed the complaint for that same purpose at the direction of Treneff. Stein did not engage in the practice of law. Accordingly, we find that the Franklin County Board of Revision had jurisdiction to consider the complaint by “Ameritech,” a registered trade name under which Ohio Bell, the property owner, may “commence * * * an action,”
{¶ 9} In case No. 97-2423, Mirge Corporation‘s vice president, Walter Higginbothan, prepared, signed, and filed the complaint on the assessment of the real property owned by the corporation. Higginbothan is not a lawyer and he therefore engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in having prepared and filed the complaint on behalf of the corporation. The fact that he was a corporate officer does not entitle him to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate under this court‘s decision in Sharon Village. See, also, generally, Union Savings Assn. Accordingly, the decision of the BTA in case No. 97-2423 is affirmed.
III
{¶ 10} In case No. 98-704, the president of the Bissett Steel Company, Barbara Bissett, prepared and filed the complaint on the assessment of real property owned by the corporation. Bissett is not a lawyer and she is not the owner of the subject property. She engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in having prepared and filed the complaint at issue. Sharon Village. See, also, Union Savings Assn. The fact that she was a corporate officer does not entitle her to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Accordingly, the BTA‘s decision in case No. 98-704 to remand the matter to the board of revision for dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
IV
{¶ 11} The Cleveland Heights/University Heights Board of Education is a body “politic and corporate” and, as such, is “capable of suing and being sued.”
Decision in case No. 97-1880 reversed;
Decision in case No. 97-2423 affirmed;
Decision in case No. 98-704 affirmed;
Decision in case Nos. 98-758 and 98-984 affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SHERCK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur.
PFIEFER, J., would reverse the decisions in 97-1880, 97-2423 and 98-704, and affirm the decision in 98-758 and 98-984.
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
JAMES R. SHERCK, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, J.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 12} This case presents this court with the challenge of striking a balance between the need to protect the public from inadequate representation and the public good that is harmed by unnecessary expansions on what constitutes the practice of law. Because I believe that the majority, in attempting to protect the public, misreads the plain language of our statutes, I respectfully dissent from the portion of the decision that affirms the BTA in case Nos. 97-2423, 98-704, 98-758, and 98-984.
{¶ 13} Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Middleton (Bd.Commrs.Unauth.Prac.1994), 66 Ohio Misc.2d 9, 642 N.E.2d 71, contains a description of the process of challenging a valuation: “Challenges regarding the valuation of realty are authorized by
{¶ 14} The practice of law has generally been defined as encompassing three types of activities: “(1) legal advice and instructions to clients advising them of their rights and obligations; (2) preparation of documents for clients, which requires legal knowledge not possessed by an ordinary layman; and (3) appearing for clients in public tribunals and assisting in the interpretation and enforcement of law, where such tribunals have the power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty, and property according to law.” Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. The Senior Serv. Group, Inc. (Bd.Commrs.Unauth.Prac.1994), 66 Ohio Misc.2d 48, 52, 642 N.E.2d 102, 104.
{¶ 15} In Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932, I concurred in the majority decision holding that the preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision on behalf of a taxpayer constitute the practice of law. Id. at syllabus. In that case, the complaint was filed by a company whose business was making a profit filing valuation complaints, a sort of tax-valuation entrepreneur. Typically, in a manner similar to contingent-fee arrangements, such companies contact landowners and then take a
{¶ 16} However, these cases present a very different scenario from Sharon Village and are therefore distinguishable. In the cases currently before this court, the complaint was prepared, signed, and filed by the corporate vice president in case No. 97-2423, by the corporate president and chief executive officer in case No. 98-704, and by the school board‘s treasurer in case Nos. 98-758 and 98-984. None of the individuals in question is an attorney, but all are officers of corporations or officers of a school board. All are directly related to the body they represent and all have a fiduciary duty to the body they represent. Thus, there is a level of accountability and protection that did not exist in Sharon Village.
Case Nos. 97-2423 (Mirge Corp.) and 98-704 (Bissett Steel Company)
{¶ 17} I would find that the Sharon Village/Union Savings Assn. line of cases is inapplicable to these two corporations because the plain language of
{¶ 18}
{¶ 19} Further,
{¶ 21} Similarly,
{¶ 22} In case Nos. 98-758 and 98-984, the school board‘s treasurer, Robert Burmeister, prepared, signed, and filed several counter-complaints with the county board of revision in response to complaints filed by Melvin and Daryl Ross seeking reduction in valuation of their taxable property. Again, according to the plain language of
{¶ 23} Further,
{¶ 24} A board of education may prepare and file documents only through people. The person designated to deal with these actions is the school board treasurer.
{¶ 25} In conclusion, I would find that if a taxpayer, representing himself or herself, has the right to file a complaint, as indicated by Sharon Village, so can a board of education and a corporation, representing itself in a pro se capacity. To hold otherwise, as the majority does, creates a distinction that does not exist in the
{¶ 26} A syllabus should be read in conjunction with the facts of a specific case. Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions, Rule 1(B). Sharon Village dealt with a very different fact pattern involving unrelated “agents.” Therefore, I would distinguish this case from Sharon Village or modify Sharon Village because I believe that Sharon Village should be limited to third-party agents who have no connection with the landowner other “than representation seeking tax reduction, to solicit and file applications pursuant to
{¶ 27} Accordingly, I concur in the decision to reverse the decision of the BTA in case No. 97-1880, but I would reverse the decisions of the BTA in case Nos. 97-2423, 98-704, 98-758, and 98-984.
COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.