Opinion

Licking Hts. Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision

  • 2025 Ohio 957
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Mar 19, 2025
Status
Published
On the bench
Baldwin
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.5%

The opinion

[Cite as Licking Hts. Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2025-Ohio-957.]

COURT OF APPEALS

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LICKING HEIGHTS LOCAL SCHOOL : JUDGES:

DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.

: Hon. Andrew J. King, J.

Appellant : Hon. David M. Gormley, J.

:

-vs- :

:

LICKING COUNTY BOARD OF : Case No. 2024 CA 0075

REVISION, ET AL. :

:

Appellees : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court

of Common Pleas, Case No. 24 CV

00765

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 19, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Appellant For Appellees

MARK H. GILLIS JENNY WELLS

KELLEY A. GORRY Licking County Prosecuting Attorney

Rich & Gillis Law Group, LLC AUSTIN A. LECKLIDER

5747 Perimeter Dr., Suite 150 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

Dublin, Ohio 43017 20 S. Second St.

Newark, Ohio 43055

For Appellee Aligned Data Centers

(Pataskala) PropCo, LLC

Aligned Data Centers (Pataskala)

PropCo, LLC

c/o CT Corporation System

4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125

Columbus, Ohio 43219

Baldwin, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Licking Heights Local 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 Aligned Data Centers (Pataskala) PropCo, LLC ("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:

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 Cnty. 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: Baldwin, P.J.

King, J. and

Gormley, J. concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.