The opinion
GATES MILLS CLUB DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPELLEE, v. CUYAHOGA
COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL.; MAYFIELD HEIGHTS BOARD OF
EDUCATION, APPELLANT.
[Cite as Gates Mills Club Dev. Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1992), 64
Ohio St.3d 198.]
Taxation — Board of Tax Appeals does not abuse its discretion in not waiving
Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-16, which permits voluntary dismissals of appeals
to the board before commencement of the hearing.
(No. 91-1257 — Submitted March 26, 1992 — Decided July 22, 1992.)
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 90-H-465.
Per Curiam. This appeal involves a procedural issue. Gates Mills Club
Development Co. (“Gates Mills”) and the Mayfield Heights Board of Education
(“Mayfield”) both filed complaints with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
contesting the auditor’s valuation of property owned by Gates Mills, which it
operated as a congregate care facility in Cuyahoga County (“subject property”).
In correspondence to the board of revision, counsel for Gates Mills represented
that the rent charged included one meal per day per resident and that the actual
rents were not fair market rents but were subsidized by HUD. The board of
revision decreased the fair market valuation of the subject property, but by less
than what Gates Mills had requested. Gates Mills appealed to the Board of Tax
Appeals (“BTA”). Mayfield did not appeal. Subsequently, Gates Mills requested
dismissal of its appeal. In opposing this request, Mayfield submitted an affidavit
claiming that it had only recently learned that Gates Mills had submitted false
information to the board of revision. According to the affidavit, counsel for Gates
Mills had admitted that he had been mistaken in representing that rents were
subsidized and included meals. The BTA granted the request by Gates Mills and
dismissed the appeal.
In its appeal to this court Mayfield contends that the BTA erred in
dismissing the appeal over Mayfield’s objection which it based upon recently
discovered material and misleading misrepresentations by Gates Mills’ counsel.
The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
The decision of the BTA was neither unreasonable nor unlawful and it is
affirmed.
Mayfield claims that the BTA abused its discretion in not waiving the
administrative rule permitting voluntary dismissals and that the rule cannot be
applied without regard to the underlying circumstances relative to material
misrepresentation. Mayfield argues that in these circumstances fundamental
fairness requires the BTA to make a de novo valuation of the property. Gates
Mills contends that Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-16 permits a voluntary dismissal and
nothing presented by Mayfield prohibits it.
Mayfield could have appealed if it was dissatisfied with the determination
of value by the board of revision, but did not do so. Such an appeal would have
protected it against the unilateral withdrawal of an appeal by locking in the
jurisdiction of the BTA to determine valuation.
Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-16 provides:
“The appellant may voluntarily dismiss an appeal by filing a notice of dismissal at
any time before the commencement of the hearing. The notice of dismissal is
with prejudice. The board shall journalize an order giving effect to the notice of
dismissal.”
In Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 62 Ohio
St.3d 156, 580 N.E.2d 775, we applied Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-16 over the
objections of the appellant that the dismissal would “operate to prejudice a party
which had obtained an appraiser, was ready to proceed with the hearing, and was
2
seeking an increase in the value of the property,” id., at 157, 580 N.E.2d 776, but
had failed to file an appeal from the board of revision’s valuation determination.
In that case, we approved the BTA’s dismissal of an appeal.
Mayfield had the opportunity to indicate its disagreement with the valuation
determined by the board of revision in at least two ways: (1) it could have
challenged Gates Mills’ counsel’s representations about meals and rents, and (2) it
could have filed a notice of appeal with the BTA contesting the reduction in
valuation of the subject property. It did neither.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., dissent.
DOUGLAS, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The judgment rendered
by the majority honors form over substance.
It appears to be conceded that appellee Gates Mills had mistakenly
(falsely) represented to the board of revision certain figures which materially
affected the fair market valuation of the property in question. Relying on these
figures, the board of revision decreased the fair market valuation of the property
by over $462,000. In doing so, the board took into consideration an alleged rental
decrease, as represented by appellee, of over $209,000—which rental decrease
did not, in fact, exist. The same problem existed regarding the meals
misrepresentation, although the record is not clear as to the sum of money
involved.
When appellee was not satisfied even with the $462,000 decrease in
valuation, it appealed to the BTA; and when the inaccuracies were discovered,
appellee requested dismissal of its appeal. The appellant opposed the request and
submitted an affidavit setting forth that the rent and meal information given to the
board of revision by appellee was incorrect. The BTA permitted appellee to
3
dismiss its appeal and the majority, herein, affirms that decision despite the fact
that appellee, in its brief before this court, does not deny that the tax valuation of
the property was, in part, determined by using false information that it had
provided.
I recognize that Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-16 provides that:
“The appellant may voluntarily dismiss an appeal by filing a notice of dismissal at
any time before the commencement of the hearing. * * * The board shall
journalize an order giving effect to the notice of dismissal.”
Statutes must be interpreted so as to avoid unreasonable or absurd
consequences. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Kosydar (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 208, 73 O.O.2d
507, 339 N.E.2d 820. The rules of an administrative agency should likewise be so
interpreted. Appellee’s appeal was pending in the BTA when the
misrepresentations were discovered. This court should vest discretion in the BTA
to reasonably construe the rules governing its operation. This court, by permitting
appellee to strategically use the rule to its advantage, negates the power of the
BTA to determine the true value of the property by considering evidence that is
full, complete and accurate rather than that based upon misrepresentations.
I would, pursuant to our scope of review, find the decision of the BTA to
be unreasonable. I would reverse the decision of the BTA and remand the cause
to it for a de novo review. Because the majority reaches a different conclusion, I
must respectfully dissent.
H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
__________________
Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A., Fred Siegel, Karen Bauernschmidt and Todd W.
Sleggs, for appellee.
Kelley, McCann & Livingstone, Fred J. Livingstone, Mark J. Valponi and
Robert A. Brindza, for appellant.
__________________
4