Gammarino v. Hamilton County Board of Revision
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Greenway Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2018)
- Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2014)
- Diley Ridge Med. Ctr. v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2014)
- Millstone Dev. , Ltd. v. Franklin Cty. Bd., Unpublished Decision (3-11-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
- General Electric v. Bd. of Revision, Unpublished Decision (4-9-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- Matteo v. Board of Revision, Unpublished Decision (10-7-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
- Kalmbach Wagner Swine Research Farm v. Board of Revision (Ohio 1998)
- Elkem Metals Co. v. Washington County Board of Revision (Ohio 1998)
- Developers Diversified Ltd. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (Ohio 1998)
- Developers Diversified Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Ohio 1998)
- Kalmbach Wagner Swine Research Farm v. Wyandot Cty. Bd. of Revision (Ohio 1998)
- Foods v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (Ohio 1997)
- Snavely v. Erie County Board of Revision (Ohio 1997)
- Snavely v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision (Ohio 1997)
- Buckeye Foods v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Ohio 1997)
- Columbia Toledo Corp. v. Lucas County Board of Revision (Ohio 1996)
- Columbia Toledo Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision (Ohio 1996)
- LCL Income Properties v. Rhodes (Ohio 1995)
- LCL Income Properties v. Rhodes (Ohio 1995)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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 filed two complaints within the same interim period, and in his second *390 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.