A local board of education is unable to appeal the tax valuation of real property except for property it owns or leases, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court found that when lawmakers enacted House Bill 126 in 2022, eliminating the ability of a board of education to challenge a county board of revision’s valuation of another owner’s property, a board did not simultaneously gain the ability to appeal such valuations to a court of common pleas through a general administrative appeal statute.

The Olentangy Local School District Board of Education had maintained that once lawmakers cut off a school district’s ability to appeal valuations to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), it opened the door to challenge taxation decisions in common pleas court. The Delaware County Common Pleas Court and the Fifth District Court of Appeals rejected Olentangy’s argument.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Daniel R. Hawkins explained that an administrative decision may be appealed to the court of common pleas under the general statute only if it is not already appealable to a “higher administrative authority.”

The General Assembly allows tax valuations to be appealed to a higher administrative authority, the BTA, Justice Hawkins wrote. “Consequently, a board of revision’s property-valuation decisions plainly fall outside the scope of decisions that may be appealed to a court of common pleas …,” he stated.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Hawkins’ decision.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner wrote that because lawmakers allow some parties to challenge valuations to the BTA, it does not mean those cut off by the change in the law have no option to challenge the decision. If Olentangy can prove it is harmed by a valuation and that the owner should be paying more in property taxes, state law still allows for a challenge to be filed in common pleas court, she wrote.

School District Challenges Law Change
Historically, a school district could appeal a property tax valuation in two ways. Districts could file an appeal with the BTA under R.C. 5717.01 to challenge any valuation of property within the district. For property the school district owned, it could appeal to the common pleas court under R.C. 5717.05. H.B. 126 eliminated the ability of boards of education to appeal decisions regarding property that the district did not own or lease.

In 2023, Olentangy sought to challenge the Delaware County auditor’s valuations of Northport Place and PSLC Enterprises. The county board of revision dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Citing R.C. 2506.01, Olentangy appealed the board of revision’s dismissal of its case to the common pleas court.

Northport Place and PSLC Enterprises asked the trial court to dismiss the appeal, arguing that boards of revision cases could not be appealed to it. The trial court dismissed the case, and Olentangy appealed to the Fifth District, which affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Supreme Court Analyzed Tax Appeals Law
Justice Hawkins explained that R.C. 2506.01, which has not changed since 2006, contains two key provisions relevant to Olentangy’s appeal. R.C. 2506.01(A) allows every final order or decision of a political subdivision to be appealed to a common pleas court. However, R.C. 2506.01(C) states that a “final order, adjudication or decision” does not include any decision “from which an appeal is granted by rule, ordinance, or statute to a higher administrative authority.”

The Court noted that R.C. 2506.01 does not specify who may appeal a decision but only indicates the types of orders that may be appealed. When considering whether it could hear Olentangy’s appeal, the first issue the court of common pleas had to consider was whether property valuations are “within the scope of decisions that may be appealed under R.C. 2506.01,” the opinion stated.

Olentangy argued that, with the passage of H.B. 126, it had no ability to appeal a tax valuation to a higher administrative authority, which meant R.C. 2506.01(C) did not apply. The Court disagreed.  Justice Hawkins explained that R.C. 5717.01 establishes a process where board of revision decisions can be appealed to a higher administrative authority, the BTA.  And because R.C. 2506.01(C) does not permit appeals to common pleas court when decisions can be appealed to a higher administrative authority, the trial court correctly dismissed Olentangy’s appeal.

Schools Can Appeal to Court, Dissent Maintained
In her dissent, Justice Brunner wrote that the Court majority should interpret R.C. 2506.01 based on a particular order appealed to a common pleas court rather than on the general category. Nothing in the text of the law supports that view of excluding appeals based on the general type of decision at issue, she stated.

Because boards of education cannot appeal tax valuations to the BTA, their challenges cannot be appealed to a higher administrative authority, the dissent noted. Prohibiting appeals to common pleas courts “leaves Olentangy and others similarly situated without a remedy,” Justice Brunner stated.

“As a result, Olentangy is authorized under R.C. 2506.01(A) to appeal the property-valuation decisions at issue here to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas,” she wrote.

2024-0814 and 2024-0815. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. V. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1963.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.