# Heath City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision > Ohio Court of Appeals · March 19, 2025 · 2025 Ohio 949 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10824823 ## Case - **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals - **Decided:** March 19, 2025 - **Citations:** 2025 Ohio 949 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** King - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10824823 ## Opinion text [Cite as Heath City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2025-Ohio-949.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HEATH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT : JUDGES: BOARD OF EDUCATION : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. Appellant : Hon. David M. Gormley, J. : -vs- : : LICKING COUNTY BOARD : Case No. 2024 CA 00066 OF REVISION, ET AL. : : Appellees : OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2024 CV 00745 JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 19, 2025 APPEARANCES: For Appellant For Appellees MARK H. GILLIS JENNY WELLS KELLEY A. GORRY AUSTIN A. LECKLIDER 5747 Perimeter Drive, Suite 150 20 South Second Street, 2nd Floor Dublin, OH 43017 Newark, OH 43055 SOUTHGATE SC, LLC, ET AL. C/O FIRST NATIONAL REALITY PARTNERS, LLC 151 Bodman Place, Suite 201 Red Bank, NJ 07701 King, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Heath City 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") and Licking County Auditor, and Southgate SC, LLC, Southgate SC TIC 1, LLC, Southgate SC TIC 2, LLC, Southgate SC TIC 3, LLC, Southgate SC TIC 4, LLC, Southgate SC TIC 5, LLC, Southgate SC TIC 6, LLC, Southgate SC TIC 7, LLC, Southgate SC TIC 8, LLC, and Southgate SC TIC 9, LLC ("Property Owners"). 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 Owners, appellees 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 King, J. Baldwin, P.J. and Gormley, J. concur. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10824823. Public record. Not legal advice.