Background
{¶ 2} This appeal involves a .14-acre residential property owned by Robert Yanega. At issue is the valuation of the property for tax year 2015. For the prior tax year-the 2014 tаx year-Yanega had filed a complaint with the BOR, challenging the valuation of the property. On December 3, 2015, the BOR reduced the property's value for tax year 2014 from $78,200 to $48,000.
{¶ 3} The tax year at issue in this case, 2015, was an update year in the county. For that tax year, the fiscal officer valued the property at $70,400-a figure that reflected a 10 percent reduction from the original $78,200 value assessed by the fiscаl officer for 2014. Yanega filed a complaint seeking a reduction of the 2015 value. He asked that the BOR value the property at either $48,000 (the redetermined amount for the 2014 tax year) or $15,000 (the amount of а 2013 sale of the
{¶ 4} At the BTA, the parties waived their appearance at the hearing, but Yanega filed a brief аsking for an additional 10 percent downward adjustment to the 2014 tax value of $48,000. Yanega argued that because the fiscal officer had reduced the 2014 tax valuation of $78,200 by 10 percent to reach a 2015 valuаtion of $70,400, a "10 percent update factor" should be applied to the tax value of $48,000 that he sought for 2015. The county did not respond to Yanega's brief.
{¶ 5} The BTA adopted Yanega's arguments and valued the property at $43,210 for 2015. BTA No. 2016-1585,
{¶ 6} The county filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the 10 percent reduction. It argued that therе was no evidence in the record to support a blanket 10 percent reduction and that the sole bases for the 10 percent reduction were statements made in Yanega's brief. The BTA denied the mоtion. The county filed a notice of appeal to this court.
{¶ 7} The county's notice of appeal sets forth three errors, all largely repetitive of each other and all relating to the еvidentiary basis for the BTA's 10 percent reduction of the property value. First, the county argues that there was no evidence in the record to support the 10 percent reduction. Next, the county argues that the BTA must limit its consideration to the transcript certified by the BOR and evidence submitted during BTA hearings. It contends that because the parties waived their appearances at the hearing and nothing in the transcript supported the BTA's 10 percent reduction, that reduction was unlawful. Finally, the county challenges the reduction because "the BTA cannot manufacture
{¶ 8} In its reply brief, the county for the first time argues that the BTA erred by carrying over the 2014 value to 2015 under R.C. 5715.19(D) because Yanega filed a fresh complaint for the 2015 tax year.
Analysis
{¶ 9} We have long held that "the carryover from the filing of a prior complaint is not applicable to the tax year and succeeding years for which a valid new complaint is filed and determined by a bоard of revision." Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision ,
{¶ 10} But our jurisdiction to review a decisiоn of the BTA is dependent upon the notice of appeal that is filed. R.C. 5717.04 provides that an appellant's notice of appeal "shall set forth the decision of the board appealed from and the errors therein complained of." We have held that compliance with this provision is a jurisdictional requirement: "Thus, errors not specified may not be asserted as a basis for relief in the brief tо the court because the lack of specification deprives the court of jurisdiction to grant relief on that basis." Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision ,
{¶ 11} We have enforced this requirement and have consistently held that we lack jurisdiction to consider errors not assigned in a notice of appeal. See, e.g. , Apple Group Ltd. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision ,
{¶ 12} That leaves the county's challenge to the additional 10 percent reduction of the property's value. In applying the 10 percent reduction, the BTA relied on
{¶ 13} In Inner City , the property owner successfully obtained a property value reduction for tax year 1993 that also applied for 1994 and 1995. Fоr tax year 1996, the auditor applied a 5 percent increase to properties throughout the county. Instead of applying this countywide update percentage increase to the property's redetermined value for 1993, however, the county applied it to the property's original value for 1993. Inner City challenged the auditor's valuation for tax year 1996 before the county board of revision. The county board of revision corrected the mistake by applying the countywide 5 percent update percentage to the property's redetermined value. Id. at 306,
{¶ 14} The BTA treated Inner City as supporting its application of the update рercentage to Yanega's property value. But there is nothing in this record showing that the 10 percent decrease that the auditor applied to Yanega's property was applied to other properties in the county on a uniform basis. In Inner City , the county board of revision adjusted the property value based on a record that reflected that the update was countywide. Here, Yanegа provided the BOR and the BTA with no evidence demonstrating that the 10 percent reduction was applied countywide or that it was based on any type of an across-the-board reduction in property values. In fact, in his notice of appeal to the BTA, Yanega indicated that his opinion of the property's value was $48,000-i.e., the redetermined 2014 value, without an additional 10 percent decrease-аnd that he was requesting a hearing. If Yanega wished to demonstrate that a value other than $48,000 was appropriate, he could have attended the hearing he requested and sought to supplement the record.
{¶ 15} Instead, he relied on a transcript that lacked any evidence showing a basis for the auditor's 10 percent reduction. He also waived appearance at the hearing. Because the record provided no basis for concluding that the auditor's 10 percent adjustment of the original 2014 value should have been applied to the reduced 2014 value, the BTA's reduction was made in error.
Conclusion
{¶ 16} The county failed to set forth the carryover issue in its notice of appeal; thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider that issue. But because the record provided no basis for the BTA to apply an additional 10 percent reduction to Yanega's
Decision affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.
O'Connor, C.J., concurs in judgment only.
O'Donnell, J., dissents, with an opinion.
O'Donnell, J., dissenting.
{¶ 17} Respectfully, I dissent.
{¶ 18} I would reverse the decision of the Boаrd of Tax Appeals. Robert Yanega filed a separate complaint for tax year 2015, and therefore the carryover provision in R.C. 5715.19(D) is inapplicable. Plain error directs that this erroneous application of the carryover provision be reversed.