In the case of Van De Hey v. Ashtabula Cty. Aud., 2023-Ohio-346, an appellate court held that a taxpayer failed to file an appeal with the board within the statutorily required timeframe under R.C. 5717.05 when the board did not receive the notice of appeal through certified mail before the appeal deadline elapsed, and therefore, the taxpayer could not appeal the board’s decision regarding the taxpayer’s home evaluation.
In this case, the taxpayer argued that (1) the board was estopped from claiming the taxpayer failed to file a timely notice of appeal pursuant to R.C. 5717.05 because the auditor’s website stated that “[t]his notice of appeal must be filed by certified mail with the Board;” (2) the board receiving the trial court’s scheduling order before the deadline was enough to satisfy the notice of appeal filing requirement; (3) the taxpayer filed the notice of appeal through constructive delivery when the taxpayer had the clerk of courts deposit the notice via certified mail; (4) actual delivery was impossible because the local post office does not deliver to the board, rather the post office requires a board employee to pick up any mail after the post office notifies the board mail is available; and (5) a hearing was needed to determine what happened to the certified mail. In response, the board argued that (1) estoppel generally may not be used against the state or state agency if an act involves the exercise of a governmental function; (2) other legal documents cannot function as a substitute for a properly filed notice of appeal; (3) R.C. 5717.05 does not contain language that allows for a notice of appeal to be “filed” when mailed; (4) the post office’s delivery policies could not change the definition of “filed;” and (5) the taxpayer failed to argue a hearing was needed on what happened to the certified mail nor provided proof to support any assertions in the trial court. The appellate court agreed with the board.
In support of its decision in support of the board, the lead appellate court decision explained that the board is a state agency that exercises the board’s governmental function. The appellate court next explained that the filing requirements in R.C. 5717.05 are mandatory and other legal documents cannot be substituted. The appellate court then explained that “statutes that provide for filing documents require physical delivery to the official or agency, unless the statute at issue states a mailbox rule that deems the claim filed when mailed.” 2023-Ohio-346 at ¶ 55. The appellate court went on to explain that “[e]ven if [the taxpayer] has accurately described the post office’s delivery policies, we have no authority to modify the Supreme Court of Ohio’s legal definition of ‘filed’ to accommodate a particular factual setting.” Id. at ¶ 59. The appellate court finally explained that the taxpayer failed to establish the notice was delivered to the board or any other conflicting evidence to establish an evidentiary hearing.
In support of its decision in favor of the taxpayer, the dissenting appellate court decision explained that, if true, the taxpayer could have lost the taxpayer’s chance at an appeal through no fault of the taxpayer as the post office or board could have been the cause of the failure to timely file the notice of appeal. The appellate court further explained that the taxpayer should not be punished for the potential actions of the post office or board, and that an evidentiary hearing should have occurred, even if such hearing would have ultimately gone against the taxpayer.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.