Granville Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision
This text of 2025 Ohio 948 (Granville Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as Granville Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2025-Ohio-948.]
COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GRANVILLE EXEMPTED VILLAGE : JUDGES SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. EDUCATION : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. : Hon. David M. Gormley, J. Appellant : : -vs- : : LICKING COUNTY BOARD OF : Case No. 2024 CA 00065 REVISION, ET AL. : : Appellees : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 24 CV 00744
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 19, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant For Appellee Licking County Auditor and Board of Revision
MARK H. GILLIS JENNY R. WELLS KELLEY A. GORRY Licking County Prosecuting Attorney 5747 Perimeter Dr., Suite 150 AUSTIN A. LECKLIDER Dublin, Ohio 43017 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 20 S. Second St., 2nd Floor Newark, Ohio 43055
For Appellee Epcon Properties, Inc.
LAUREN M. JOHNSON NICHOLAS M.J. RAY 52 E. Gay St. P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1008 Gormley, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Granville Exempted Village School District Board of Education
(“BOE”), appeals the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio,
dismissing its complaint challenging the 2023 tax value of certain real property.
{¶2} Appellees are Licking County Board of Revision (“BOR”), Licking County
Auditor, and Epcon Properties, Inc. (“Property Owner”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶3} The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:
{¶4} In 2023, BOE filed an original valuation complaint with the BOR for tax year
2023, challenging the true valuation of certain real property and seeking an increase in
the value of properties owned by the Property Owner, appellee herein.
{¶5} The BOR dismissed the BOE's complaint due to lack of subject matter
jurisdiction for noncompliance with R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) without holding a hearing.
{¶6} The BOE appealed this decision to the Court of Common Pleas for Licking
County, Ohio, as an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.
{¶7} The trial court sua sponte dismissed the appeal.
{¶8} The BOE filed a timely notice of appeal and herein raises the following two
assignments of error.
{¶9} "I. THE LICKING COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED IN
IGNORING THE SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF R.C. 2506.01 AS SET
FORTH IN WALKER, SUTHERLAND-WAGNER, AND NUSPL, BECAUSE AN APPEAL
IS AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO R.C. 2506.01 WHEN NEITHER EXISTING R.C. 5717.05 NOR THE REVISIONS TO R.C. 5717.01 PROHIBIT AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO R.C.
2506.01."
{¶10} "II. THE PERCEIVED INTENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN
ENACTING H.B. 126 MAY NOT BE ELEVATED ABOVE THE ACTUAL WORDS THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY USED IN THE REVISIONS TO R.C. 5717.01 OR TO INSERT
WORDS IN R.C. 5717.05 THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DID NOT INSERT TO
PRECLUDE AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO R.C. 2506.01."
I., II.
{¶11} The issue before this court is whether the trial court erred in holding that a
board of education lacks statutory authority to appeal a decision of a county board of
revision to the common pleas court as an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.
We previously addressed this issue in Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Education v.
Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2024-Ohio-1564 (5th Dist.).
{¶12} In Olentangy, this court found the language in R.C. Ch. 5717 was not
ambiguous, and the right to an appeal is solely with the property owner. Id. at ¶ 32.
Furthermore, we held that a board of education is statutorily prohibited from appealing a
decision of the board of revision to either the Board of Tax Appeals or the common pleas
court. Id. at ¶ 43.
{¶13} For these reasons set forth in Olentangy, we find the trial court did not err
in dismissing the BOE's appeal of the BOR's decision.
{¶14} Accordingly, BOE's first and second assignments of error are overruled. CONCLUSION
{¶15} Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Licking County, Ohio is affirmed.
By: Gormley, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
King, J. concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ohio 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granville-exempted-village-school-dist-bd-of-edn-v-licking-cty-bd-of-ohioctapp-2025.