Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richard W. Foster v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

October 27, 2011

RICHARD W. FOSTER PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES



Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-742430

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eileen A. Gallagher, J.:

Cite as

Foster v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision,

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

BEFORE: E. Gallagher, J., Kilbane, A.J., and Rocco, J.

{¶1} Richard Foster appeals from the decision of the trial court, dismissing his administrative appeal from the Board of Revision. Foster argues that the trial court erred when it found that he did not comply with the requirements of R.C. 5717.05 and granted appellees' motion to dismiss as being untimely filed. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

{¶2} On December 30, 2009, Foster filed a complaint against the valuation of his home, permanent parcel no. 601-03-059. On November 3, 2010, the Board of Revision for Cuyahoga County, Ohio rendered a decision on Foster's complaint, lowering the property's value by $52,800. On November 30, 2010, Foster appealed the Board of Revision's decision through an administrative appeal filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Foster named the Board of Revision and Jim Rokakis, the former County Treasurer, as appellees. *fn1 Foster alleged that the Board of Revision's evaluation was contrary to law, was discriminatory and was not supported by the evidence.

{¶3} On April 27, 2011, defendants-appellees, the Board of Revision, and James Rokakis, former Treasurer of Cuyahoga County, filed a motion to dismiss. In that motion, the appellees argued that Foster failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 5717.05, which governs appeals from the Boards of Revision. Specifically, appellees argued that Foster failed to name the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer (formerly the Cuyahoga County Auditor) in his administrative appeal, and failed to serve the Fiscal Officer, as well as the appellees, with notice of this appeal by certified mail. Appellees argued these violations of R.C. 5717.05 deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Foster opposed the motion, which was nonetheless granted on May 17, 2011, finding as follows:

"Appellees' motion to dismiss, filed 4/27/2011, is granted. R.C. 5717.05 states, 'the County Auditor and all parties to the proceeding before the Board, other than the appellant filing in the court, shall be made appellees, and notice of the appeal shall be served upon them by certified mail unless waived.' Appellant has failed to name the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer (formerly known as the Cuyahoga County Auditor) as an appellee and has failed to serve the Fiscal Officer with a copy of the notice of appeal. * * * Appellant's notice of appeal is dismissed."

{¶4} Foster appeals, raising the two assignments of error contained in the appendix to this opinion.

{¶5} In his first assigned error, Foster argues the trial court erred in finding that he did not comply with the requirements of R.C. 5717.05. We disagree.

{ΒΆ6} In 4747 Mann, LLC v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Cuyahoga App. No. 95596, 2011-Ohio-2593, this Court dealt with a similar factual scenario. In 4747 Mann, this court affirmed the court of common pleas dismissal of the appellant landowner's administrative appeal after the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.