# Fravel v. Stark County Board of Revision

> Ohio Supreme Court · May 31, 2000 · 88 Ohio St. 3d 574

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6781323

## Case

- **Full name:** Fravel v. Stark County Board of Revision
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 31, 2000
- **Citations:** 88 Ohio St. 3d 574; 728 N.E.2d 393
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pfeifer
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 9 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/6781323

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that a taxpayer's nephew with durable general power of attorney engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and filing a valuation complaint with a board of revision

## Opinion text

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting. This case presents an example of an opinion of this court being taken to an illogical extreme. My vote in Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 479 , 678 N.E.2d 932 , was based on the facts of that case — a third-party agent, unrelated to the entities seeking revisions, filed applications with the Licking County Board of Revision. I saw that decision as one affecting freelancers soliciting and filing applications for revision without having a real relationship with the taxpayer. I considered that practice to be potentially harmful to taxpayers.
With this case, we have finally reached the level of reductio ad absurdum regarding Sharon Village. Here, Frieda Fravel has given Dorn the legal power to step into her shoes. He is operating as Frieda Fravel, not merely on her behalf. By all accounts, this is a loving relative, trusted to take control of Fravel’s estate, doing what is clearly in the best interest of the estate. This does not come close to involving the perceived perils involved with Sharon Village. I accordingly dissent, and would urge this court to take this opportunity to clearly delineate what Sharon Village truly means.
Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6781323. Public record. Not legal advice.