finding "no inherent power for a board of revision to vacate a decision, even a void decision, after the appeal time has run"
How later courts described this case
- finding "no inherent power for a board of revision to vacate a decision, even a void decision, after the appeal time has run"
- recognizing a court’s “inherent power * * * to vacate void judgments[.]”
- “Only the BTA and the common pleas courts have been granted authority under R.C. 5717.01 and 5717.05 to review board of revision decisions, and even they can review decisions only where the appeals have been filed in a timely manner.”
- courts have inherent power to vacate void judgments
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Cook, J.,
concurring. I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the failure to provide the required notices to Candlewood deprived the BOR of jurisdiction to make its original decision increasing the valuation of Candlewood’s property. These procedural failures rendered the BOR’s original August 18, 1997 valuation increase a nullity. The dissent believes that under Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 20 , 28 OBR 83, 502 N.E.2d 590 , the BOR retained jurisdiction to set aside or reconsider this valuation since the time for appealing that order had been tolled due to the agency’s failure to notify Candlewood of its decision. I agree with the majority, however, that since the BOR is a creature of statute, its authority to reconsider its decisions is limited to the powers conferred upon it by statute. And no authority existed under R.C. Title 57 for the BOR’s action in this case.