The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that the Marysville Exempted Village School District can continue its challenge against the property tax valuation of The Residence of Cooks Pointe, despite a change in state law in 2022. This decision allows the school district to appeal to the state Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), although recent legislation limits local governments' rights to appeal tax valuation decisions.
In a 6-1 decision, Justice Melody Stewart explained that because the school board's objection was pending before the county board of revision prior to the new law's enactment, they retained their right to appeal. "We hold that the plain language of amended R.C. 5717.01 makes clear that the amended statute does not apply to cases in which a challenge to an auditor’s property valuation was pending before a board of revision when the amendment took effect," stated the Court.
The ruling affirms a previous decision by the Third District Court of Appeals, allowing Marysville's case to proceed with further proceedings at the BTA. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, Jennifer Brunner, and Joseph T. Deters supported Justice Stewart’s opinion.
Justice Patrick F. Fischer dissented, arguing that regardless of when Marysville filed its complaint with the county board, they were prohibited from appealing due to receiving notification after the new law took effect.
Initially assessed at $8,787,310 for 2021 by Union County auditor, two taxpayers argued for a higher valuation in February 2022 based on market value assessments nearly three times greater than determined by auditors. In May 2022, Marysville joined this dispute through a counter-complaint.
House Bill 126 passed in April 2022 restricted local governments’ ability—including school boards—to challenge valuations unless involving properties they own or lease. Although HB 126 took effect in July 2022, Marysville pursued an appeal following an August vote affirming original valuations but faced dismissal from BTA citing legislative changes.
In reversing BTA’s dismissal upon reaching them again post-July implementation date—per interpretation found within court opinions—the Third District favored advancing Maryville's argument into further stages before Ohio's highest judicial body upheld such findings now favorably returning matters toward BTA attention anew today while underscoring relevant procedural distinctions central throughout related discussions ongoing here thus far ultimately impacting all involved entities concerned thereby overall.
Justice Stewart elaborated on these distinctions stating: "Had General Assembly used past tense phrasing indicating intent statutory amendment applied cases pending... But not what General Assembly did." Hence filing complaints initiated prior under then-current regulations supersede subsequent alterations retrospectively extending coverage differently specified otherwise elsewhere across separate provisions enacted afterward instead during intervening periods elapsed meanwhile between initial filings until ultimate resolutions arrived finally concluded therein effectively binding parties thereto accordingly thereafter pursuant standard procedures established henceforth ever since...
Conversely dissent maintained opposing perspectives via alternative interpretations proposed differing notably contrasting analyses presented supporting competing arguments advanced highlighting potential discrepancies overlooked perhaps inadvertently addressed sufficiently herein potentially warranting reconsideration revisiting issues debated previously unresolved outstanding contentions raised nonetheless...