Summary
In Hope v. Highland Cty. Bd. of Revision, 56 Ohio St.3d 68, 564 N.E.2d 433 (1990), the Ohio Supreme Court held that "[adherence to the provisions of the appellate statutes is essential to confer jurisdiction upon the BTA to hear appeals."
Summary of this case from Commonwealth Upscale Props., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of RevisionOpinion
No. 90-179
Submitted September 27, 1990 —
Decided December 12, 1990.
Taxation — Appeal to Board of Tax Appeals — Failure to file timely notice of appeal with the BTA is cause for dismissal of appeal — Adherence to R.C. 5717.01 is mandatory.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 89-D-911.
The county auditor increased the valuation of certain real estate in Highland County owned by appellant, Jack I. Hope, by three hundred thirty percent. On complaint, the Board of Revision of Highland County determined on August 2, 1989, that the auditor's valuation was correct.
On August 30, 1989, appellant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Highland County under R.C. 5717.05, by filing a copy of the notice of appeal with the board of revision and a copy with the court of common pleas. At the same time appellant attempted to appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") under R.C. 5717.01. Appellant filed a copy of the notice of appeal with the board of revision but, according to appellant, on the assumption that the board of revision would file the notice of appeal with the BTA, he did not file a copy with the BTA. Thereafter, upon learning that no notice of appeal had been filed with the BTA, appellant filed such notice of appeal.
The board of revision moved to dismiss the purported appeal alleging: (1) that appellant had failed to comply with the mandatory filing provision of R.C. 5717.01, and (2) that the court of common pleas acquired exclusive jurisdiction under R.C. 5717.05 because the notice of appeal from the board of revision's decision was first filed in that court.
The BTA determined that appellant had failed to file a notice of appeal with it within the time prescribed by R.C. 5717.01 and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The BTA did not pass on the second alleged ground for dismissal.
This cause is before the court upon an appeal as of right.
Jack I. Hope, pro se, for appellant.
Rocky A. Coss, prosecuting attorney, and Ralph W. Phillips, for appellee.
Adherence to the provisions of the appellate statutes is essential to confer jurisdiction upon the BTA to hear appeals. American Restaurant Lunch Co. v. Bowers (1946), 147 Ohio St. 147, 34 O.O. 8, 70 N.E.2d 93. R.C. 5717.01 is specific and mandatory. It requires that notice of appeal be filed by the appellant both with the board of revision and with the BTA. Failure to comply with the appellate statute is fatal to the appeal. Austin Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 192, 546 N.E.2d 404. See, also, Fineberg v. Kosydar (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 1, 73 O.O. 2d 1, 335 N.E.2d 705; and Zephyr Room, Inc. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 287, 58 O.O. 67, 130 N.E.2d 362.
The decision of the BTA is neither unreasonable nor unlawful and it is hereby affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.