The opinion
[Cite as Licking Hts. Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2025-Ohio-953.]
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 0071
REVISION, ET AL. :
:
Appellees : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court
of Common Pleas, Case No. 24 CV
00768
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 3rd Gen Properties II, LLC
KRISTINA S. DAHMANN
KISHALA SRIVASTAVA
ERICA L. ARRAS
Ice Miller LLP
250 West Street, Suite 700
Columbus, Ohio 43215
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 3rd Gen Properties II, 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.