Upper Arlington v. McClain

2019-Ohio-1726 (Ohio 2019) · Supreme Court of Ohio · May 9, 2019 · No. 2018-1830

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a motion to dismiss an appeal concerning Tree of Life Christian Ministries, L.L.C.’s claim for property-tax exemption. The court held that R.C. 5717.04 does not establish a deadline for serving a notice of appeal by certified mail on appellees, and rejected reliance on precedent requiring service within the appeal period in real-property-valuation cases.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Maureen O'Connor, Chief Justice; Eileen T. French, Justice; Patrick F. Fischer, Justice; William M. DeWine, Justice; Michael P. Donnelly, Justice; Melody J. Stewart, Justice; Jennifer Brunner Kennedy, Justice
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
May 9, 2019
Docket number
2018-1830
Procedural posture
The appellees moved to dismiss Tree of Life's appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Tree of Life failed to initiate certified-mail service of its notice of appeal within the thirty-day appeal period prescribed by R.C. 5717.04.
Standard of review
The court considered the jurisdictional motion to dismiss based on the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal; no separate standard-of-review formulation was expressly stated.
Precedential value
Published and precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Parties
Tree of Life Christian Ministries, L.L.C. v. City of Upper Arlington, Upper Arlington City School District Board of Education, Jeff McClain, Tax Commissioner
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

property taxtax court procedureappellate procedurestatutory interpretationmunicipal law

Practice areas

property taxationtax appealsappellate procedurestatutory interpretationmunicipal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether R.C. 5717.04 requires certified-mail service of a notice of appeal on appellees to be initiated within the thirty-day period for filing the appeal.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio had jurisdiction to hear a tax-exemption appeal when the Tax Commissioner was already a party in the proceedings below and the notice of appeal was served on the appellees by certified mail.

Holdings

  1. R.C. 5717.04 does not establish a timeline requiring certified-mail service of the notice of appeal on appellees to be initiated within the thirty-day period for filing the appeal.
  2. Dismissal was not warranted because the Tax Commissioner was already a party in the proceedings below, the appeal involved a tax exemption rather than real-property valuation, and the notice of appeal was served on the appellees by certified mail.

Key quotations

If the commissioner is not a party to the appeal or application before the board, the supreme court or court of appeals, as applicable, shall not dismiss an appeal of the board’s decision because of the failure to make the commissioner an appellee or to serve the notice of appeal to the commissioner as otherwise required under this section. (¶ 5)
Looking solely at the statute, R.C. 5717.04 does not state a timeline for the certified-mail service of the notice of appeal on the appellees. (¶ 6)

Factual background

Tree of Life Christian Ministries, L.L.C. owned several parcels of land and sought a property-tax exemption. The Board of Tax Appeals denied the exemption claim. Tree of Life appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the appellees did not dispute that Tree of Life served the notice of appeal on them by certified mail, but argued that service was initiated outside the thirty-day appeal period.

Procedural history

Tree of Life appealed the Board of Tax Appeals' denial of its claim for property-tax exemption concerning several parcels of land. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the City of Upper Arlington and the Upper Arlington City School District Board of Education moved to dismiss, relying principally on Berea City School District Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision. The Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that R.C. 5717.04 does not establish a deadline for certified-mail service on appellees and that the notice was in fact served.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…