The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 80 Ohio St.3d 32.]
GAMMARINO ET AL., APPELLEES, v. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION,
APPELLEE; RHODES, HAMILTON COUNTY AUDITOR, APPELLANT.
[Cite as Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 1997-Ohio-361.]
Taxation—Real property valuation—Complaint filed with county board of revision
must comply with R.C. 5715.13—Preparation and filing of complaint with
county board of revision by individual not authorized to practice law in
Ohio and not an “agent” constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
(No. 97-164—Submitted July 23, 1997—Decided October 8, 1997.)
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 96-K-280.
__________________
{¶ 1} Appellee, Al Gammarino, filed a real property valuation complaint
with the Hamilton County Board of Revision (“BOR”) on March 30, 1995 for tax
year 1994. The complaint listed the owner of the property as Rex Overstreet and
the complainant as Billy McPherson. The complaint listed Gammarino as the
complainant’s agent; Gammarino signed the complaint, apparently as an agent.
{¶ 2} At a hearing before the BOR, inquiry was made into Gammarino’s
relationship with the property, and with Overstreet and McPherson. Gammarino
told the BOR that he was appearing in his capacity as “a Real Estate Broker Agent
for Mr. McPherson or Mr. Overstreet,” and that he filed the complaint at
Overstreet’s and McPherson’s request. Gammarino said he had had a
principal/agent relationship with Overstreet in past years, but had no current
relationship. As to McPherson, Gammarino said he had not represented him as a
broker. Gammarino admitted that he did not manage the property or take care of
the utilities.
{¶ 3} The BOR dismissed the complaint for being improperly filed. In
response to the dismissal, Gammarino filed an appeal with the Board of Tax
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Appeals (“BTA”). At the hearing before the BTA, counsel for the county
established that Gammarino was not an attorney, did not own the property, did not
manage the property, and did not rent the property. Gammarino admitted he had
no written authorization to file the complaint. He explained that McPherson owned
the property before Overstreet purchased it at a judicial sale in 1993. However,
because of a problem with the sale, McPherson regained title to the property in
August 1995. Gammarino again stated that he filed the complaint because
Overstreet and McPherson had requested him to do so. Gammarino stated that he
had no continuing business relationship with either Overstreet or McPherson.
Although Gammarino signed the notice of appeal to the BTA as “Al Gammarino
Trustee/agent,” he admitted no trust existed. He said he had signed his name as
trustee because he was acting for Overstreet and McPherson, not because he was
trustee in a legal sense. Gammarino said he had no arrangements with McPherson
to pay him or give him any percentage of any tax savings that might result from the
filing of the complaint.
{¶ 4} The BTA found that, although Gammarino named himself as the
appellant in the notice of appeal to the BTA, he was not a party to the proceedings
before the BOR. Instead, the BTA found Gammarino was merely an “agent” who
had filed the complaint for other individuals. The BTA sua sponte substituted
Overstreet as the real party in interest. The BTA also found that McPherson had
no ownership interest in the property that would permit him to file a complaint.
Finally, the BTA found Gammarino’s explanation “plausible,” and held that the
underlying complaint was filed on behalf of both McPherson and Overstreet.
Consequently, the BTA reversed and remanded the matter to the BOR for a
determination of value.
{¶ 5} The Hamilton County Auditor has filed an appeal as of right with this
court.
__________________
2
January Term, 1997
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J.
Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} Appellant raises two primary arguments: that an unrelated lay person
may not file and prosecute a complaint before a board of revision, and that such
representation by a lay person constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
{¶ 7} Appellees have not filed briefs with this court.
{¶ 8} Subsequent to the BTA’s decision in this matter on January 3, 1997,
we decided Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio
St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932, which involved a real estate valuation complaint filed
with a board of revision by a nonattorney. In Sharon Village Ltd., the sole question
before us was whether a nonlawyer-agent filing complaints with a board of revision
was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. After reviewing the procedures
before a board of revision and exploring some of the ramifications of filing a
complaint, we interpreted the term “agent” in R.C. 5715.13 to include the affected
party’s attorney. Id. at 483, 678 N.E.2d at 936. We then went on to hold that “the
preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision on behalf of a
taxpayer constitute the practice of law.” Id. Since the tax agent involved in Sharon
Village Ltd. was not an attorney, his actions in filing the complaints constituted the
unauthorized practice of law. In Sharon Village Ltd. we affirmed the BTA’s
decision, which held that the complaints filed with the board of revision were not
“sufficient to repose jurisdiction in the Licking County BOR.” Sharon Village Ltd.
v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (Dec. 1, 1995), Board of Tax Appeals, No. 94-M-
1214, unreported. We affirmed the dismissal of the appeals.
{¶ 9} The facts of the present case and our decision in Sharon Village Ltd.
require us to hold that Gammarino was not an “agent” within the meaning of R.C.
5715.13 for the purpose of filing the complaint in question with the BOR. Because
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Gammarino was not an agent, his filing of the complaint constituted the
unauthorized practice of law.
{¶ 10} In Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio
St.2d 233, 235, 67 O.O.2d 296, 298, 313 N.E.2d 14, 16, we held that “full
compliance with R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13 is necessary before a county board of
revision is empowered to act on the merits of a claim.” Therefore, because the
complaint filed in this matter did not meet the requirements of R.C. 5715.13, it was
not an effective complaint. Without an effective complaint, the BOR had nothing
to hear and determine. R.C. 5715.01 and 5715.11. We affirm the BOR’s dismissal
of the complaint.
{¶ 11} Because our decision upholds the BOR’s dismissal of Gammarino’s
complaint for lack of jurisdiction, we decline to address the remaining arguments
raised by appellant concerning procedural issues arising subsequent to the BOR’s
decision.
{¶ 12} Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, the decision of the BTA
requiring the BOR to make a determination as to the value of the property is
unreasonable and unlawful, and it is reversed.
Decision reversed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
4