IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Sylvania City Schools On Appeal From the OHIO BOARD'OF TAX

Board of Education APPEALS Case No. 2011-M-2524

Appellant BOR Case No. 2010500278

V.

Lucas County Board of Revision

The Lucas County Auditor

and

Kris A. Kostrzewski M.D./Ph.D.

Family Practice, LLC,

Appellees

NOTICE OF APPi+AT.

^^^^®T

G®EC 2.a 2olf

LtERk il^ COURTSUPREMC COiJRT OF OHIO

For the Appellant: Spengler Nathanson P.L.L.

Michael W. Bragg

Four Seagate, Suite 400, Toledo, OH 43604

For the County - Appellees : Julia R. Bates

Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney

Carol L. Bruggeman

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

One Government Center, Suite 500,

Toledo, OH 43605

For the Appellee - Propezty Owner: Kris A. Kostrzewski, M.D./Ph.D. PRO SE

9244 Wintergreen Ct, Sylvania, OH 43560

R'LL"cG'^r^ r^.^ u

LO9^CLERIt OF C

SUPREME CUUA^I^

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. STATEMENT OF APPELLE'S POSITION AS TO 4V=HER A SUBSTANTIAL

ERROR HAS BEEN MADE IN THE TRIAL ....... ....................... 1

II. CONCLUSION .................................................... 1

ATTACHIIMENTS

1. CD BOR # 201050278 .... .............................. APP. 1

2. SETILFMENT STATENfET77.' ..... ........................... APP. 2-4

3. COMPLAINT AGAINST THE VALUE OFRE'AL PROPERTY ... ...... APP. 5-7

4. TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL FROM COUNTYBOR ................ APP. 8

5. DECISION AND ORDER OF OHIO BOARD'OF

TAX APPEALS ..... .................................... APP. 9-10

PROOF OF SERVICE ........................................ 2

- t-

STATIIMENT OF APPELLEE

Now comes Kris A. Kostrzewski - Property Owner, with an appeal of the

Decision and Order of Ohio Board of Tax Appeal, decided on November 21, 2011.

Appellee Kris A. Kostrzewski feels that the error has been made in the trial

due to misinterpretation of the alleged defective complaint.

Clairtr-•r3 Error

On the Complaint Against the Value of the Real Property timely and

appropriately filed under No.: BOR 201050278 line 14 the box "The property

was sold in an arm's length transaction" was checked and marked, however this

did apparently not appear visibly enough on the copy to be recognized in the

process as marked.

Second Defense

Neither Appellant nor Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, both never raised any

question if Lucas County Board of Revision performed an appropriate

calculation of current real estate taxes based on purchase price and current

real value of the property.

Conclusion

THEREFORE, Appellee Kris A. Kostrzewski after his explanation of non existence

of alleged defective complaint, asks this Court to correct Decision and Order

of Ohio Board of Tax Appeal and allow to use the calculation• of real estate

taxes as per most recent decision of Lucas County Board of Revision based on a

real value of the propertynas is $140,000.00.

Kri^. Kostrzewskj`; M.D./Ph.D.

9244 Wintergreen Ct., Sylvania OH 43560 Phone 419 8825850

Appellee - Property Owner

A. Settlement Statement

B. TyoeofLoan1. G FAA ?. 13 Fm1fA 3. OConvlinms4. OVA 5. O Com•im- 6. t] Se11er Firww

C°Nmr. Thieionnafmmhedmgivcyouosmter.wotofe..amisoulememotts. Amoun¢paidromWbylhesemmnai^...._'(P.oFI'wvemnloumrdedmcWirs'drcvmeshownMefimNomumeni .^.^ vM IudediuslxuaaLc

D.Nmne&AddnssofBOrroxrr(CroA.MStraerrsld,ffiD/IM1{D.FamOyPrmdce.6LC

E.Namc&Addresof5cllaU.S. 'Bmtk, \->. m Trusra f CludQUUpMorquge l.onu Tuv. Ine.

a SenlememAemrXameAttoThleAgeney,luc120 Emt Fo6rth St Se<aud FloorCNC1nuukOB45202 TmID:L•nderweitteu B): FUStAmerlrao

F.Nmne& AddrmsoELendc

Phce of $rnfememA<wTi6eAgeveF,tncSZO Een Fomth St.Secand B.Cwduumi.OB 45101

G.PrupenyLaeation

Knniripnliry5tyennia, Priar Ouner Taosif.Fnraaun.ReFerral No.4359331. Lueas Cuuury5/00WnivutCOVeS)1vaoia.OH .f3560

.1. S.mary dBorrowers TraaserriuufOn.GrossAmoumDircf Eorrower

101. ContmctSaksAvx102. PersowiPropern

103. SeNmrcmChargesrobmroac

IOf.5231.00

S463.15

SIJ0.69it5

S?316.63

SI40.S9A15

401. ComraaSekaPnrn402 Paeavailkoperty

407. Camy.'iprapeny uxes

43. AssmscxmTasm

410. N%Dlses

411. Odxrtases41' 2010 Aan duea 3/1? w IJS1/10

4]0. Grom Amaum Duew SNMr

Sol. EscrosDeoosir50? _Seol.Chmp ro5eller(lim 1400)503. EusringLmNS)rakensubjeclto

510 _C4ryFUnenc mca511. Cowtp pmyem° mx¢ 0710U09 tlue 03/13/10

51± Assasmenrraxes

513_School pmyeny aµas514. MUDtax^'s515. Odmrmx¢

517_W m er h tl13I50/08 w 9.' I SlUS

SA: Tute1 RMutnna Amomt Due Seller

55A16.0 I 60.+. Less rNumimu in uum. ducarllnrfline 5_0)603. Cesh T. Seikr

105.

Adiusmenss fm @ems paid by sdler in udsao106. ChyPwPZ<tft%as

I OT Coum.- pmpeny h^ras

t0.4. MxssmemTeres

10$. SWm01 Pr6PCM1)° M.

110. -NIUDraxet

ili. Olherraxn

112. ]Of0 issndues3;12ru1'131i10

1!6

I.V. G. Amaunt Due Fram Ibrro.sr.500. Amwms Poid Bp Or fn 8ehalf Of Burmwm?01. Deoosit or emuex mmml^S1000 RErLR\'ED-30-, Prec'spat ammmt of new° lomM51203. Eestmgloanla)rakmsubi.w

20:. Cmmdmtemfee

?Od

_oa

Adimtmenta( Demsmry'sidbyatller

111^ Chvpmpem+aees

_li. Coumrrpropem°mas 0]/Oi/OSrMu03/Iv10?I?. AeessmrnsTams213. School

214. WD,

215. thkermxes

319.

M.

220. Tomi Paid BnFor Bnrrower500. Cush Ar Seldement From/fo Borrorcer?ul GmasAmomxdueiiombartowerllive12a1

40 V. G^Amoant Dae to Sener

iL.stmeuri rorDemspaid by

00_RedoPiona io Amonut Dna so S

djmtmeob Yor items uupad by seller

600. C^sh At Sehlement To/Fram SAler

0.&e0.50

S11116.01

5140.463.15

51&116°UI

312i1i0.145135,31J ,o

Secion 5 of she &sl Esratz SeNemem Pmeedmes Aa rRESPAI rnluires dicIWlm.ine -H(.'Dmiar«.xlopaSpcnallnfomcuonBontietwhelppersensiwna i'^ morxr w mwtt dx l+urchase of rvsidendal real ame w benerwdetsund rhe ^mme and cons of reel esvre sedenunr smias;° Each lender muss Fwside dre boeklm w all apPlianes from unom u resa.^m far xirote P2 W rm a nnen apldieeden te bumw.° ma^el° w 6n=nee rucpurdu:e of rmdmdal reaf euatr, - LeMm musr gepae and diseibme wirhrhe BodJ' ec a Cmod FaiuY Esrimate of Oa sndenum cosa 6m rhe Wnmsxr uIl f^ ro maa iv mm^son wiN dx umlemem. Thex disckaurcs artmaoECOn

Prt+iom Editiom sre Obwlete

6.Fikmmn6erCN08U1a900

U.S Department ofHousingand IIrban Det•elopment

7.Loan\umber

K Summary nfSenc'.Trmsnaiou

OMB No. 2502-0265

I.ScdlmruarDarn3/122010Fund

.ar.4w) of RESPA ^ tlua FtUD daelap and Prmeribe this mndadfmm w ba usW at drc time of lozo seNemem w pmvide fWl discla'sme of all.irar3>unroseJUPOnihebmnmerandselier. Thesearedmdtmrn'disNOwrcsrhmax dagned ro pwwde tlw bmrouxr wedr p yiemr infomwion during dceseutemem moxss in mder w be a bemr shapperThc Pub:ic Repomny Burden for tbis eolkaion of informerion is esummed toa mge one Four per rapmse, includinS the dme fm reWeiog iavumiams'^chinp eaisdrigdma murces pmhedn8 m1d maiomin'ulg the dam ueede6 andaompimino md ievieuina she cullemion of i^d'omurioaThn ageu^ may nce roBea dds mfo®aoea aeE yon are nm repuhed wcomp.kteitis Cams unle;Fit disSlai+n cwrmilr.2lid pSqR cmmol numbe.Theinkrmar4onrmuweJdopnmlend' !E con6dendalfR'

P^ 1 form BUB-i (3/861Hendbook4305±

FileNa.CNU5014900

L Se[Oment CTmBa Y. = S&400.00T00.TObi$olalBrakv'sCmm^aixiionE'ssMonPrue SIi0.000.00 2^

Dtvision ofCommiesion Pirt TOU) u folbws^Itea1H

TO1.S1,900.00 ro gery^ABimcePrmlar703. 83r<OOAU

103. CovaassionPaidet$ettlea^mc POC $237160106. Atlm' fec I.ossRmlH [o Defaai[Smid LLC ,

800. Itma Ya9able in CoanecGOO with Iaao

801. inan0ri^nenoaFa % 1O

802 LasnDiscow[ ._ .

fl03 AppbissiFee

$OM1. CbSRRePan805. [.endedslmpmOOnFee w806: InaasaccAPpliracan

F ro80) A900. FtmeAeqaiid .901 intqestf- 3/1N2010 a1/2010 SO/day

902. imwatcePmmmnf montks to

903.8azudLuumaaFramimfm Yms to

imR.rs..nd W&hLead

IWi.I3azudeee4et00+Mce[oaaoitm'boce

1003.Ci[Ypt^p"'[Yn-1004 CmmryPW"1005.Assessmen[T1006. Sdwcl pmper

t007.MUDteta1008.OtM1atawtmt evacemAditmnm

2 00. TitleChsrBc+to eat[ie1eA eyNSlP

IIOLSedammtordmin68fea p .Ive.[o AeatlOe

1102 AM1Sbttt ortitleseerchro A titl Agett9,fne

1103 Ttl^ ro A _N AfFncYUOi B ader^"9C"' to A W A8 eY L'1105.UocdtnentwePa'an°" ro

110SNOreryfca ro1107. Attome/stees(iMludesabmsitemswmbers: ro A^^eASeaq,fac11o8.Tttleinsaa^cefinclad•selm'aitemSanmbus:

1109 Isndelse $140.000.00.5805.00

I110. Oamefs

1itL CPI.Fas _ _ to._1^0. Gmasomaan^`°.'.^ ___ __ .. mf.au+Caeepwt2016ecordin$Fta pbd5.M.0B;Mm8A4e;ko1

^y.dp.gp:^nqage m1.+mCweHA.dim.1'.IOS. CiH/caamY>aJst°nPS m^m^amAed:mr

1203. Sbtebx/stmnPS ^^'MO^sS`

1,041?0..Ta><^sams ro5. Con miaFce ro

m AcaM1ityAgenm' fae-Fceset4ar1206: ComialMes

1J00. Addi[iaaal SaOmea[ CbarBa

1301. S

^^^ w AccvritleABce .IneIW"' im1303. OeermSM Ftts

I304. WwFearo Ac[ntiOeAga[Y,Iac.

eoosdfmwmfeeto Defnol[Ser." IYC

l

Foc SlOOPD

Faid From

BonowisFuadcv

Seulanent

$16U.00

$T500

$100.00

1305. CavnS _ifW.Totel$eetlmenlCSa (svtaoaFina3U3,SatinaJSad

^"^^ esl,2and3oftltisFiU6t5admm

Ligbmamenrs mWeon my^awwm orbY me intltisnbnacn'oa1 faNrcrcettifY Ou[ t{uw realved acompteted a^' aEpag ^1et^tmtofell.adpb end

$immmc U.$. Bank. NA asTVSteetorCltigmuP Mof^aOe Loen Ttua.Orc. MPMCi'vkA. M1ffl21ID.Fem1lYPrecua.LLC7COwaevrski.

NsUmial AssotlOWn ownar atWor 50rvt^er ss AttomaY in /ad'Bank

By

SEFR.Bh>D'ff AGENT CptT]FICATIONce accmamamtrl[ I hare Ptepertd is o n'x'nd

TheHUU-1 Sadetoant S+r°nan[ ^^fw^ roye dubwsed inaaemnoftl+isuan+aaiaecmdentt witit tAa stazamea[

DxeSe¢Im:en[Agm m^ fi^amemymsta aror'theUnited

ra^^Varniag:Itiseetimetolmov+iMJY$[mesontldsararryodrersitmlafamt. FaWercsupvawm+ineludeaEnemdinW`''aon"'em. Fadetailssee:Ti0e18U.$.COdeSsction

1001 mW Sation 1010.Fmious Ed'v4ons me Otralae

pamovm

prrmomM1T perinoMM

neWBtnStee

.

By

YndFmm

Sell<rs

Fundsat

IaNeaem

fbmBODd (3/86)i{andyook33U5.3

l111lD

^ V!

ATTACH ALL DOCUMENTS TO TIIIS FORM

Attach the original or a true and complete copy of all documents and records pertaining to the complaint and to each

counter-complaint, if any, field with board of revision, including, but not limited to the following:

A. The complaint filed by the complainant, together with all documents filled with that complaint. The complaint

should clearly show the date it was filed with the board of revision.

B. Notices, correspondence, and all other documents constituting the file record of the county board of revision

relating to this complaint;

C. County Auditor's property record cards for the real property or manufactured or mobile home involved in the

complaint;

D. The transcript or record of the proceedings before the board of revision pertaining to the complaint, including all

evidence offered in connection with the complaint;

E. The decision rendered on the complaint;

F. Proof that notice of the decision of the county board of revision was mailed by certified mail to all persons

entitled to such notice and the date of mailing, as prescribed by R.C. 5715.20;

G. Notice of appeal, if any, filed with the county board of revision, with the date of filing clearly shown. If notice ofappeal is filed by certificated mail, express mail, or authorized delivery service, the date of the United Statespostmark placed on the sender's receipt by the postal service or the date of receipt recorded by the authorized

delivery service shall be treated as the date of filing.

H. Proof the notice of the filing of the appeal to the board of tax appeals was mailed by certificate mail of all personswho were parties to the proceedings before the board of revision.

Identify and describe the attached documents below:EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION

S -P bLL ol kai

e

PaU+oU^ mNPL:Q,MT N'o; 2Ao9 4(,22S-4 ;,009 4z3j^^^4^^^^treE FGRmt pt^ ota2) BOR NO.0.G5715.13, 5715.19

COMPI.AIlVT AGAINST 'PHE VALUE OF REAI.. PROPERTYANSWEBALL@UFSTIONSANDTYPEOBPRINTAGLIIVFORMATION

READ 1NSTRUCfIONS ON BACE'. BEFORE COl[>pLE77NG F'ORM

ATTACR APDIITONAL PAGES IF NF'f'M'ecARY

TAX yEAR 2010

^nrtnrrv LUGAS

37Nt]3 ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

q COUNTER- COMPLAIIdT

DATE RECEIVED

RECEIVED

2011 JAN 25 PM 3=BCiFtitt) 0;' RE't<iSiO_LUCAS GO ITY

vV V NOTiCES WILL BE SENT ONLY TO THOSE NAME BELOWName Street Address, City, State, Zip Code

ts SILy1)Ownerof proper2) Complainant if not owner

K#241^w

f d

3) ComplainanYs agent

4) Teleplnme number of contact person ( [Q ) 88.ES8$.0

Com lainant's relationshi to -tyif not owner . __If more than one 1 is included, see °`Multi ie Pamels" on back.

6) Parcel Number &om tax bill5760 1d

Address of

C0 S t! H^ 49 3Sn^ - nz5S

7) Principal use of propeRy-

8 The inerease or decrease in taxable value sou t• Counter-com laints su auditor's value have zao in Column D.

Parcel Number Complainant's t7pinion of ValueColumn B

' Column DColumn CColumn ATmeValue TaxableValue

CurreMTaxableValue ChangeinTaxableValue(+or-)B minus Col. C)(Col

(Fair Market Value) (35%ofColumnA).(FromTaxBSll)

^ b Aww.

9 The ues[ed chan e in value is'ustified for e followin reasons:

YVPI, xckA-s CE tLfl 4 s(x ® 7

"

No q Unknown O. If10) Was properiy7 sold wqithin the last 3 years?

Yes yes, show date of sale and

, --- and attaoh mformahon^explaaacd^tn' " 11-is " c`klovs-"foFPU" onsaleprice$ 14otWV

11) If property was not sold but was listed fm sale the last 3 years, attacha ofli '^ ^entor i ayy¢¢tl ie• defnce

12) if any improvements were completed in the lasf 3 years, show date and total cost$ I^ !'47+'^11(Ci ^^--^

13) Do you intend to present the testimony or report of a pro fessional appralser? Yes No 0 Unknown

14) If you have filed a prior complaint on this parcel since the last reappraisal or update of property values in the county, the reason for the

valuation change requested must be one of those below. Please check all that apply and explain on attached sheet See 1tC. 5715.19(A)(2)

for a complete explanation.

15 The'property was sold in an arm's length transaction; ®The Pm 1 value due to a casualty;

q A substantial improvement was added to the p ^q Occupan ch ge of lea

beestn exa

15%mhadined substantial economic impact on the property.

) as by me and to best of my knowledge andr-^F IiF inn at the comth paI declare under penalties of per;ury

belief is teue,portect and complete.

Date A0 4 ^ ComPlainant or Agent

Swnrn to and si¢ned in my Presance, this.!PR..:At__

v aa4 ^-^ .^ , (^otle(IfAgent)`^S^'^'f^^^

^^}g _ owner 4;l@a a bb`^ Lf-1 a1S ^r Jof ^q m^ ^iu ^

tiv^s OgWjed ;7- lo,tkcrF 3W-,sOUit^^ ,6eca%A* 1in.a.; 1 W iAWeV^

^iPt^, Gw1 . ©wltlcr bovy(,-I- -, urC.e( 7^J^7^^95t cs^ ^VCOo -`vf

ooo, T--}' wws- on mr,l'1rQ,%f- rn^u: ^onyF! An rEbWlAA

^f 4.4e 3ac^s ca>e ^"^c^r^; ^'- s^^ wu^ n^'^ Gi^r^tdEraA 1^ ^

ano^ ga^ c.asQbe^^se, t3- vvuz ^ICa ^^i^tsJ^c^+,

- F^^r^ nUli l^pv1F^^ V' ^$^GtkSt ji,Cfnn,C !^ 15 01 5EN114

i^ ;PL- -j"fle,7rq y+^^ Qer-r7ad and becvio^q, 1 k I'f no boxex ti-4tR.-^f ny

U^,

Gi^/l 'J +Q SQ ^ Si3 t d d) ^{^ ^ 1 ^r, ^e cU^2 r^jletk vit 174, °pv-4J . ('W^

Gn ^a^w v^ c^ ^/^ cO^R, Srl }^Q,r^ Gut1^ sml,k^a,^i^A co°^t°l^eriR,^

-R^. evmPle^^j RherhAOod

►A ra^^tur^ ,v suPoQ

w4, qchru4 •

DTE Form 3(R2vised o1ro2)R.C.57.17.01

TRANSCRIPT ON APPEALFROM COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION

KRIS A KOSTRZEWSKI,MDIPHD, FAMILY PRACTICE LLC #

Natne (Please Print)

9244 WINTERGREEN CT SYLVANIA ,OH 43560

Address City State Zip

Appellant.

BOR Case No. 201050278

AUDITOR AND THE BOARD OF REVISION

of LUCAS County,Ohio BTA Case No. 2011-M-2524

Etal

(Names of other appellees, if any) Appellee(s).

To the Board Of Tax Appeals:The board of revision hereby certifies the transcript of the record of the proceedings before it pertaining to theoriginal complaint in the captioned matter and all evidence offered in connection with that complaint.

1. The complaint (copy attached) was filed byKRIS A KOSTRZEWSKI,MD/PHD, FAMILY PRACTICE LLC #

2. A counter-complaint (copy attached), if any, was filledby Board of Education for Sylvania City Schools

KRIS A KOSTRZEWSKI,MDlPHD, FAMILY PRACTICE LLC #3. The property is listed in the name(s) of

with a tax mailing address of 9244 WINTERGREEN CT SYLVANIA ,OH 43560

SYLVANIA TWP.-SYLVANIA CSD taxing district.and is located in the

4. The board of revision issued its decision on (date)8110/2011 and mailed the decision by certified

mail to all parties as prescribed by ORC 5715.20 on (date)811512011

2010 to be as follows.5. The auditor and board of revision found the valuation and assessment for tax year

(If more than one parcel or manufactured or mobile home, attach sheet showing values for additionalformat as below)eparcels or homes usang sam

PARCEL NUMBER:

79-72594 AUDITOR BOR INCREASE(DECREASE)

LAND (NOT APPLICABLE TO MANUFACTURED OR MOBILE HOME COMPLAINTS)

TRUE VALUE 83,500 83,500 +0

TAXABLE VALUE 29,230 29,230 +0

BUILDING OR MANUFACUTRED OR MOBILE HOME

TRUE VALUE 219,600 56,500 -163,100

TAXABLE VALUE 76,86019,780 -57,080

6. A copy of the notice of appeal was received and fled on (date)been notified of the appeal by certified mail.

MA copy of the notice of appeai has not been received by the board of revision.

and all parties have

I certify that the foregoing statements. are true and that the attached transcript is a true and complete record ofthe proceedings before the board of revision pertaining to the decision appealed from and all evidence offered and consideredwby the boAo£reyision.

T

•(signature)

tCoun yAuditor of LUCAS(BACK OF FORM MUST ALSO BE COMPLETED)

'^Lp Date`'

OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

Board of Education for Sylvania

City Schools,

Appellant,

CASE NO. 2011-M-2524

(REAL PROPERTY TAX)

DECISION AND ORDER

vs.

Lucas County Board of Revision,the Lucas County Auditor andKris A. Kostrzewski, M.D./Ph.D.Family Practice, LLC,

Appellees.

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant - Spengler Nathanson P.L.L.Michael W. BraggFour Seagate, Suite 400Toledo, Ohio 43604

For the County - Julia R. BatesAppellees Lucas County Prosecuting Attomey

Carol L. BruggemanAssistant Prosecuting AttomeyOne Govemment Center, Suite 500Toledo, Ohio 43605

For the Appellee - Kris A. Kostrzewski, M.D./Phd.D, pro se^ Property Owner 9244 Wintergreen Ct.AV r^ 11

i/ Y 9 2011 Sylvania, Ohio 43560

Ms. Margulies, Mr. Johrendt, and Mr. Williamson concur.

The appellee property owner filed a motion to dismiss, which the board

construed as a motion to affirm, and, on October 18, 2011, found to be premature.

However, a review of the record before the board at that time revealed a potential

ground for remanding the matter to the Lucas County Board of Revision ("BOR")

^,with instructions to dismiss the complaint before it. It appeared to this board that the

property owner had filed two complaints with the BOR within a single triennial

period, without complying with R.C. 5715.19(A)(2). As a result, the board sought

additional information regarding the 2009 complaint. On September 28, 2011, the

Board of Education for Sylvania City Schools ("BOE") filed a motion to remand with

instructions to dismiss based upon a violation of R.C. 5715.19(A)(2).

The relevant interim period for Lucas County covered 2009, 2010, and

2011. The complaint which was the genesis of this appeal challenges tax year 2010.

However, the property owner also filed a complaint challenging value for the 2009

appeal. According to the property owner, that complaint was dismissed for failure to

identify the correct owner of the property. S.T., Attachment to complaint.

The property owner then challenged value for the 2010 tax year.

However, in order for a second filing within a single triennial period to be valid, a

complaint must provide a reason for the second filing. R.C. 5715.19(A)(2)

specifically prohibits a second filing unless one of the following circumstances is

alleged:

"(a) The property was sold in an arm's length transaction, as

described in section 5713.03 of the Revised Code;

"(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 theproperty's occupancy has had a substantial economic impact

on the property." (Emphasis added.)

Despite the explanation as to why a second complaint was filed, the property owner

did not identi any circumstanceori line 14-of-the-complaintwhiehspacifically es e%^

2

the information necessary to vest jurisdiction in the BOR. Failing to allege an

exception to the rule on the face of the complaint is sufficient in itself to dismiss the

complaint. Tri-Columbus Assoc. v. Franklin Cry. Bd. of Revision (June 30, 1995),

BTA No. 1994-M-884, unreported.

The fact that the property owner's first complaint was dismissed for

jurisdictional reasons does not aid the property owner in pursuing the valuation claim.

The Ohio Supreme Court has held in Elkem Metals Co., L.P. v. Washington Cty. Bd.

of Revision (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 683, that even if the property owner files a defective

complaint challenging value for an earlier year, a later complaint does not vest

jurisdiction in a board of revision unless one of the four exceptions is alleged and

applies. See, also, Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd of Revision, 96

Ohio St.3d 170, 2002-Ohio-4032, wherein the court held at ¶11, "Whatever happens

to a complaint after it is filed is irrelevant for the purposes of R.C. 5715.19(A)(2). If

`a person, board, or officer' files a complaint in an interim period it may not file

another complaint in the same interim period, unless one or more of the four statutory

circumstances listed in R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) is alleged."

As the property owner did not allege any reason for the second filing on

the face of the complaint, this board must find that the BOR had no jurisdiction to

consider the 2010 valuation challenge. Therefore, the BOE's motion to remand is

granted, and the matter is remanded to the BOR with instructions to dismiss the

complaint before it. The result of such a dismissal is the reinstatement of the auditor's

values.

I hereby certify the foregoing to be a trueand complete copy of the action taken bythe Board of Tax Appeals of the State ofOhio and entered upon its journal this day,

with respect to the captioned matter.

Sa11 n^eter Board Secretary

PROOF OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing correctedNotice of Appeal

has been mailed this 19th day of December, 2011 to:

1. Julia R. Bates, Esq.

Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney

Carol L. Bruggeman, Esq.

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

One Government Center, Suite 500

Toledo, OH 43605

2. Spengler Nathanson P.L.L.

Michael W. Bragg, Esq.

Four SeaGate, Suite 400

Toledo, OH 43604

Kris A. Kostrzewski - Appellee

ATTACHMENT NOT SCANNED