Summary
In Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 388, 643 N.E.2d 1143, a real property valuation complaint for tax year 1990 was dismissed for lack of standing.
Summary of this case from Elkem Metals L.P. v. Wash. Cty. Bd. of RevisionOpinion
No. 93-2272
Submitted September 9, 1994 —
Decided December 30, 1994.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 92-B-1402.
Appellee, Al Gammarino, objected to the valuation of certain real property as determined by the Auditor of Hamilton County for tax year 1990 and filed a complaint with the Hamilton County Board of Revision. The board dismissed the complaint for lack of standing and Gammarino appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA"). That appeal was dismissed because Gammarino failed to file a timely notice of appeal. Tax year 1990 was the first year of a triennium.
For tax year 1991, Gammarino filed the instant complaint with the board of revision, again challenging the valuation of the same parcel. The board dismissed the complaint for lack of prosecution, because Gammarino failed to appear for the board of revision hearing despite having received notice of the hearing. Again, Gammarino appealed to the BTA.
At the BTA hearing, the auditor moved to dismiss the appeal under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2), asserting that the valuation fixed for the first year of the triennium applied to subsequent years. The auditor contended also that the appeal should be dismissed because Gammarino had failed to appear at the board of revision hearing or otherwise participate before the board of revision.
The BTA denied the auditor's motion, finding that the board of revision lacked the statutory authority to dismiss the complaint and was required by R.C. 5715.19 to determine the value of the subject property. The BTA reinstated Gammarino's complaint and remanded the cause to the board of revision for a determination of value.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
The decision of the BTA is unreasonable and unlawful and it is reversed.
R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) prohibits a person from filing a complaint as to the valuation of property if the person "filed a complaint against the valuation * * * for any prior tax year in the same interim period, unless the person * * * alleges that the valuation * * * should be changed due to one or more of the following circumstances that occurred after the tax lien date for the tax year for which the prior complaint was filed and that the circumstances were not taken into consideration with respect to the prior complaint:
"(a) The property was sold in an arm's length transaction * * *;
"(b) The property lost value due to some casualty;
"(c) Substantial improvement was added to the property;
"(d) An increase or decrease of at least fifteen per cent in the property's occupancy has had a substantial economic impact on the property."
R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) further states: "`interim period' means, for each county, the tax year to which section 5715.24 of the Revised Code applies and each subsequent tax year until the tax year in which that section applies again."
R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) clearly provides that only one complaint can be filed during each interim period absent any showing of a change in circumstances as described in R.C. 5715.19(A)(2)(a) through (d). Gammarino never disputed that he had filed two complaints within the same interim period, and in his second complaint, he failed to assert the applicability of any of the circumstances enumerated in R.C. 5715.19(A)(2)(a) through (d).
Therefore, the BTA erred in failing to grant the auditor's motion to dismiss Gammarino's appeal on the basis that a complaint for the first year of the same triennium had already been filed.
The decision of the BTA refusing to dismiss the complaint and requiring the board of revision to make a determination as to the value of the subject property is unreasonable and unlawful and it is reversed.
Decision reversed.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.