Gammarino v. Hamilton County Board of Revision

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

**** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****

The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice

Thomas J. Moyer.

Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.

NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the

full texts of the opinions after they have been released

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Gammarino, Appellee, v. Hamilton County Board of Revision;

Rhodes, Auditor, Appellant.

[Cite as Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision

(1994), Ohio St.3d .]

Taxation -- Real property valuation -- Complaint filed with

board of revision -- R.C. 5715.19(A)(2), applied.

(No. 93-2272 -- Submitted September 9, 1994 -- Decided

December 30, 1994.)

Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 92-B-1402.

Appellee, Al Gammarino, objected to the valuation of

certain real property as determined by the Auditor of Hamilton

County for tax year 1990 and filed a complaint with the

Hamilton County Board of Revision. The board dismissed the

complaint for lack of standing and Gammarino appealed to the

Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA"). That appeal was dismissed

because Gammarino failed to file a timely notice of appeal.

Tax year 1990 was the first year of a triennium.

For tax year 1991 Gammarino filed the instant complaint

with the board of revision, again challenging the valuation of

the same parcel. The board dismissed the complaint for lack of

prosecution, because Gammarino failed to appear for the board

of revision hearing despite having received notice of the

hearing. Again, Gammarino appealed to the BTA.

At the BTA hearing, the auditor moved to dismiss the

appeal under R.C. 5715.19(A)(2), asserting that the valuation

fixed for the first year of the triennum applied to subsequent

years. The auditor contended also that the appeal should be

dismissed because Gammarino had failed to appear at the board

of revision hearing or otherwise participate before the board

of revision.

The BTA denied the auditor's motion, finding that the

board of revision lacked the statutory authority to dismiss the

complaint and was required by R.C. 5715.19 to determine the

value of the subject property. The BTA reinstated Gammarino's

complaint and remanded the cause to the board of revision for a

determination of value.

The cause is now before this court on appeal as of right.

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney ,

and Thomas J. Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for

appellant.

Per Curiam. The decision of the BTA is unreasonable and

unlawful and it is reversed.

R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) prohibits a person from filing a

complaint as to the valuation of property if the person "filed

a complaint against the valuation * * * for any prior tax year

in the same interim period, unless the person * * * alleges

that the valuation * * * should be changed due to one or more

of the following circumstances that occurred after the tax lien

date for the tax year for which the prior complaint was filed

and that the circumstances were not taken into consideration

with respect to the prior complaint:

"(a) The property was sold in an arm's length transaction

* * *;

"(b) The property lost value due to some casualty;

"(c) Substantial improvement was added to the property;

"(d) An increase or decrease of at least fifteen per cent

in the property's occupancy has had a substantial economic

impact on the property."

R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) further states: "'interim period'

means, for each county, the tax year to which section 5715.24

of the Revised Code applies and each subsequent tax year until

the tax year in which that section applies again."

R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) clearly provides that only one

complaint can be filed during each interim period absent any

showing of a change in circumstances as described in R.C.

5715.19(A)(2)(a) through (d). Gammarino never disputed that he

had failed two complaints within the same interim period, and

in his second complaint, he failed to assert the applicability

of any of the circumstances enumerated in R.C. 5715.19(A)(2)(a)

through (d).

Therefore, the BTA erred in failing to grant the auditor's

motion to dismiss Gammarino's appeal on the basis that a

complaint for the first year of the same triennium had already

been filed.

The decision of the BTA refusing to dismiss the complaint

and requiring the board of revision to make a determination as

to the value of the subject property is unreasonable and

unlawful and it is reversed.

Decision reversed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.

Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.