| Home |
| Our Firm |
| Attorneys and Staff |
| Practice Areas |
| News Releases |
| Coolidge Newsletter |
| Seminars |
| Careers |
| Coolidge Wall Finlay Johnson and Beard |
| Contact Us |
33 West First Street
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Tel: 937.223.8177
Fax: 937.223.6705
News Release
11/29/06
Coolidge Wall Wins Major Decision in the Ohio Supreme Court
On November 29, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion that may have a major impact on property valuation complaints filed in any county’s Board of Revision. In Dayton Supply & Tool v. Board of Revision, 111 Ohio St.3d 367 (2006), the Supreme Court carved out a major exception to its revered 1997 Sharon Village opinion and ruled that a corporate officer could sign and file a Complaint in the Board of Revision to contest the proposed tax assessment valuation. Merle Wilberding of Coolidge Wall had argued the case before the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of Dayton Supply & Tool on February 21, 2006.
A previous effort by the legislature to change the impact of Sharon Village had been rejected by the Board Tax Appeals and several courts of appeals as violative of the “separation of powers” doctrine of the Ohio Constitution.
Before this decision, the local boards of revision, the Board of Tax Appeals, and the Ohio courts of appeals, had routinely dismissed any complaint not signed by an attorney-at-law on the theory that it was the unauthorized practice of law. Ohio immediately enacted a new statute to authorize the long standing practice, but. the Board of Tax Appeals and several courts of appeals had all concluded that the new statute violated the separation of powers doctrine of the Ohio Constitution.
Thus, the Montgomery County Board of Revision has refused to follow the statutory amendment, putting a notice on the backside of its complaint form that any complaint that did not comply with Sharon Village would be “subject to dismissal and may not be heard on its merits.” In a 24 page opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court used the Dayton Supply case to reassess the contours of the unauthorized practice of law landscape and concluded that public-interest factors justified an exception to the Sharon Village rule.
We had urged the Supreme Court to permit officers of corporations and LLC’s to sign complaints and present factual evidence. The Supreme Court accepted our argument. In some ways, this opinion aligns practice before the Board of Revision with practice before the Bureau of Workers' Compensation and the Industrial Commission. (It is possible that these unauthorized practice of law rules may in the future be extended to proceedings before a board of zoning appeals or similar body.)
In all of these quasi-judicial venues, a corporation or LLC officer can file and present factual information. The Supreme Court’s opinion emphasizes that a non-lawyer may not make legal arguments, examine witnesses, or undertake any other task that can be performed only by an attorney. It is also important to note that this opinion does not in anyway authorize non-lawyer third parties (e.g., appraisers or realtors) to sign a complaint on behalf of someone else.
The real message of this case is that a corporation or LLC may be saved from having its case dismissed when a complaint has been filed by a corporate officer.This case eliminates the jurisdictional issue that it otherwise a fatal flaw.
An attorney is still needed to examine witnesses and to make motions or legal arguments. If you are considering a claim in the Board of Revision or considering contesting a claim before the Bureau of Workers' Compensation or the Industrial Commission, contact one of our Coolidge Wall attorneys to evaluate your claim.