Meadows Development, L.L.C. v. Champaign County Board of Revision

Meadows Dev., L.L.C. v. Champaign Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St. 3d 349, 2010-Ohio-249 · Supreme Court of Ohio · February 3, 2010 · No. 2009-0064

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a county board of revision may recertify its decision to a new address within the original 30-day appeal period, provided no appeal has yet been taken and the new mailing is reasonably calculated to provide notice. The valid second certification begins a new 30-day period for appealing to the Board of Tax Appeals. The court reversed the dismissal of Meadows Development’s appeal and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. A board of revision has jurisdiction to make a second certification of its decision within the 30-day appeal period established by the first certification, provided that no appeal has yet been taken from the first certification.
  2. A board of revision properly certifies its decision under R.C. 5715.20 when it sends the decision by certified mail to an address reasonably calculated to give notice of the decision to the owner, including the address of an attorney actively representing the owner at the board hearing.
  3. A valid second certification made within the initial 30-day appeal period, before any appeal has been instituted, starts a new 30-day period for appealing the board of revision's decision to the Board of Tax Appeals.
  4. The Civil Rules, including Civ.R. 5(B), do not govern the administrative certification of a board of revision decision under these circumstances.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a county board of revision may recertify its decision to a different address during the 30-day appeal period established by the initial certification when no appeal has yet been filed.
  2. Whether certification of a board of revision decision to the address of the owner's attorney is valid when that address is reasonably calculated to provide notice to the owner.
  3. Whether the second certification commenced a new 30-day period for appealing the board of revision decision to the Board of Tax Appeals.
  4. Whether the Civil Rules, particularly Civ.R. 5(B), governed the board of revision's certification of its decision.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (14)

  • Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St.3d 399, 2006-Ohio-5856, 856 N.E.2d 954, ¶ 14(followed)
  • Gahanna-Jefferson Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino, 93 Ohio St.3d 231, 232, 754 N.E.2d 789(followed)
  • HealthSouth Corp. v. Levin, 121 Ohio St.3d 282, 2009-Ohio-584, 903 N.E.2d 1179, ¶ 24(followed)
  • Columbus S. Lumber Co. v. Peck, 159 Ohio St. 564, 569, 50 O.O. 457, 113 N.E.2d 1(followed)
  • S hochwert?(not determined)
  • Swa[n]der Ditch Landowners’ Assn. v. Joint Bd. of Huron & Seneca Cty. Commrs., 51 Ohio St.3d 131, 554 N.E.2d 1324(distinguished)
  • Tower City Properties v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 49 Ohio St.3d 67, 70, 551 N.E.2d 122(followed)
  • Knickerbocker Properties, Inc. XLII v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 119 Ohio St.3d 233, 2008-Ohio-3192, 893 N.E.2d 457, ¶ 17(followed)
  • Newman v. Levin, 120 Ohio St.3d 127, 2008-Ohio-5202, 896 N.E.2d 995, ¶ 28(followed)
  • Hafiz v. Levin, 120 Ohio St.3d 447, 2008-Ohio-6788, 900 N.E.2d 181, ¶ 8(followed)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court