Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision

2002 Ohio 2489, 95 Ohio St. 3d 462

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 12, 2002

Docket2001-0948 & 2001-0949

StatusPublished

This text of 2002 Ohio 2489 (Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2002 Ohio 2489, 95 Ohio St. 3d 462 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 95 Ohio St.3d 462.]

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VANDALIA-BUTLER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLANT, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2002-Ohio-2489.] Taxation—Real property valuation—Landlord and tenant cannot file separate complaints against same property during same interim period under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2). (Nos. 2001-0948 and 2001-0949—Submitted March 12, 2002—Decided June 12, 2002.) APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 98-M-1013 and 98-M-1014. __________________ {¶1} The judgment of this court in case No. 2001-0948 is limited to addressing appellant’s Proposition of Law No. 4, which states: {¶2} “A landlord and a tenant cannot file separate complaints against same property during the same interim period under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2).” {¶3} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in case No. 2001-0948 is reversed on the authority of R.C. 5715.19(A)(2). {¶4} The judgment of this court in case No. 2001-0949 is limited to addressing appellant’s Proposition of Law No. 2, which states: {¶5} “A landlord and a tenant cannot file separate complaints against same property during the same interim period under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2).” {¶6} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in case No. 2001-0949 is reversed on the authority of R.C. 5715.19(A)(2). MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

PFEIFER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. __________________ PFEIFER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. {¶7} I concur with the majority’s implicit determination that R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) requires complaints to be brought in the name of the owner. However, I strongly disagree with the majority’s implicit conclusion that this case amounts to multiple appeals within the statutory time period. When one large parcel is divided into many distinct plots, the right to appeal should be determined by plot, not by the parcel as a whole. To do otherwise is grossly unfair to the actual users because of the multiple uses to which the land is put. Accordingly, I concur in part and dissent in part. __________________ Rich, Crites & Wesp, Jeffrey A. Rich and Mark H. Gillis, for appellant in case Nos. 2001-0948 and 2001-0949. Sebaly, Shillito & Dryer, L.P.A., Martin A. Beyer and Lynn Bruckelmeyer, for appellees Dayton Airport Inn and Kittyhawk Corp., in case No. 2001-0948. Froelich & Weprin Co., L.P.A., and Gary L. Froelich, for appellee Carroll Building Co., LLC, in case No. 2001-0949. __________________

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 95 Ohio St.3d 462.]

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VANDALIA-BUTLER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLANT, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2002-Ohio-2489.] Taxation—Real property valuation—Landlord and tenant cannot file separate complaints against same property during same interim period under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2). (Nos. 2001-0948 and 2001-0949—Submitted March 12, 2002—Decided June 12, 2002.) APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 98-M-1013 and 98-M-1014. __________________ {¶1} The judgment of this court in case No. 2001-0948 is limited to addressing appellant’s Proposition of Law No. 4, which states: {¶2} “A landlord and a tenant cannot file separate complaints against same property during the same interim period under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2).” {¶3} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in case No. 2001-0948 is reversed on the authority of R.C. 5715.19(A)(2). {¶4} The judgment of this court in case No. 2001-0949 is limited to addressing appellant’s Proposition of Law No. 2, which states: {¶5} “A landlord and a tenant cannot file separate complaints against same property during the same interim period under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2).” {¶6} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in case No. 2001-0949 is reversed on the authority of R.C. 5715.19(A)(2). MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

PFEIFER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. __________________ PFEIFER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. {¶7} I concur with the majority’s implicit determination that R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) requires complaints to be brought in the name of the owner. However, I strongly disagree with the majority’s implicit conclusion that this case amounts to multiple appeals within the statutory time period. When one large parcel is divided into many distinct plots, the right to appeal should be determined by plot, not by the parcel as a whole. To do otherwise is grossly unfair to the actual users because of the multiple uses to which the land is put. Accordingly, I concur in part and dissent in part. __________________ Rich, Crites & Wesp, Jeffrey A. Rich and Mark H. Gillis, for appellant in case Nos. 2001-0948 and 2001-0949. Sebaly, Shillito & Dryer, L.P.A., Martin A. Beyer and Lynn Bruckelmeyer, for appellees Dayton Airport Inn and Kittyhawk Corp., in case No. 2001-0948. Froelich & Weprin Co., L.P.A., and Gary L. Froelich, for appellee Carroll Building Co., LLC, in case No. 2001-0949. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 Ohio 2489, 95 Ohio St. 3d 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandalia-butler-city-school-dist-bd-of-edn-v-montgomery-cty-bd-of-ohio-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack