COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHT DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NOS 73083 AND 73084 POINT EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., : INC., ET AL. : Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION CUYAHOGA COUNTY BD. OF REVISION : : Defendants-Appellees : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CASE NOS. 96-P-367, 96-P-368 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: FRED SIEGEL (#0005855) Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. 1900 East Ninth St.,Suite 2700 Suite 2700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 ANNRITA S.JOHNSON(#00012041) Fred Siegel Co. 3001 Bethel Road, Suite 208 Columbus, OH 43220 For Defendant-Appellee, Cuy. County Bd. of Rev.: SAUNDRA CURTIS-PATRICK (#0027907) Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) For Appellee, Beachwood City School District: DANIEL M. McINTYRE (#0051220) Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs 1700 One Cleveland Center 1375 East Ninth Street -ii- Cleveland, OH 44114-1724 SPELLACY, J.: Plaintiff-appellant Point East Condominium Association, Inc. ( appellant ) appeals from the dismissal of its complaint by the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals ( BTA ) for lack of standing and for failure to file a complaint which complied with R.C. 5715.13 and R.C. 5715.19. Appellant has listed both propositions of law and -2- assignments of error in its brief. As appellant only has argued the propositions of law, this court will regard the propositions of law as appellant's assignments of error for purposes of appeal. Appellant's assignments of error are as follows: I. A CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION HAS STANDING TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH A COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION REQUESTING A DECREASE IN VALUATION PURSUANT TO R.C. 5311.20. II. NONSTATUTORY REQUIREMENTS CANNOT BE USED AS A BASIS TO DISMISS AN OTHERWISE VALID COMPLAINT. NUCORP, INC. V. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION (1980), 64 OHIO ST.2D 20. Finding the appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. Point East is an eighty-six unit condominium complex located in Beachwood. Appellant is the unit owners' condominium association for Point East. The fire sprinkler system at Point East needed replacing due to a problem with leakage. Since 1986, nearly a million dollars ($1,000,000) has been spent in the replacement project and Point East anticipated spending more than a million dollars ($1,000,000) to complete replacement of the fire sprinkler system in the entire complex. The unit owners were assessed the cost of replacing the fire sprinkler system. Because the problem with the fire sprinkler system is well known in the community, unit owners have experienced difficulty selling their condominiums at either the equal to their purchase price or for increased value. -3- After receiving their assessed property valuations from Cuyahoga County, several of the unit owners complained to appellant about the valuation of their property. Appellant decided to file a complaint with regard to the 1994 valuations. Seventy-six of the condominium units were a part of the complaint. The board of revision dismissed appellant's complaint for lack of jurisdiction because appellant did not own the property. On April 10, 1996, appellant filed an appeal with BTA. On appellant's complaint, it was listed as owner followed by an et al. Appellant then appended a list of the permanent parcel numbers for the units as well as the current taxable value of each unit. The Beachwood Board of Education filed a motion to dismiss appellant's appeal arguing appellant was not a party affected pursuant to R.C. 5715.13 and R.C. 5715.19 as appellant was not the owner of the property in question. Appellant countered that it did have standing to prosecute the case as appellant contended it fully complied with R.C. 5715.13 and R.C. 5715.19. Appellant stated it was a party affected as it is comprised of the owners of the condominium units. Further, the unit owners are taxed for a proportionate share of the common areas and the dispute at the center of the complaint involved a common area. Appellant also relied on R.C. 5311.20 as support that, as a condominium association, it had the statutory authority to file a complaint. BTA held a hearing on the matter but limited the scope of the hearing to the issues raised in the Beachwood Board of Education's -4- motion to dismiss. BTA upheld the dismissal of appellant's complaint. BTA pointed out that the complaint does not identify the individual unit owners even though the individual condominium units are separate tax parcels pursuant to R.C. 5311.11. The people who own an interest in the units are the owners for tax purposes and not a condominium association. BTA found that appellant was not a party affected within the meaning of R.C. 5715.13. BTA also found that the phrase et al. did not sufficiently identify the true complaining parties. BTA found the complaint to be jurisdictionally defective for not properly identifying the owners and for including multiple economic units within the same complaint. BTA also found that jurisdiction could not be assumed based upon the counter-complaint filed by the Beachwood Board of Education as a board of revision lacks jurisdiction over a counter-complaint once the original complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. II. In its first assignment of error, appellant contends BTA erred by failing to consider R.C. 5311.20 in making its decision that appellant lacked standing to bring a complaint requesting a decrease in valuation for the condominium units. Appellant argues that this provision grants it standing to sue or be sued in any action relating to the common areas. As the sprinkling system is a part of the common areas, appellant asserts that it had standing to file the complaint with the board of revision. R.C. 5311.20 provides in part: -5- In any action relating to the common areas and facilities or to any right, duty, or obligation possessed or imposed upon the unit owners association, by statute or otherwise, the unit owners association may sue or be sued as a separate legal entity ... Any such action brought by or on behalf of the unit owners association shall be pursuant to authority granted by its board of managers. Appellant premises its argument that it has standing to bring the complaint before the board of revision on this statutory authority. Appellant also points out that in Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. Of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 479, the court noted that a complaint filed before a board of revision is brought for the purpose of initiating an adversarial proceeding the same as any other complaint. The pertinent issue at the heart of this appeal is whether or not R.C. 5311.20 applies to a complaint filed with a board of revision in an effort to reduce the property taxes paid by condominium unit owners. BTA based its decision in part on R.C. 5311.11 which states that: Each unit of a condominium property and the percentage of interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to it shall be deemed to be a separate parcel for all purposes of taxation and assessment of real property, and no other unit or other part of the condominium property shall be charged with the payment of such taxes and assessments. Because the units are considered to be separate parcels for taxation purposes, BTA reasoned that only the unit owner or his or her agent could bring a complaint for decrease of property tax. -6- BTA also relied on R.C. 5715.13 which provides that a board of revision cannot decrease the valuation of any real property unless the party affected or his agent files a written application for a decrease. R.C. 5715.19(A)(1)(e) limits those persons or entities who can file a complaint on an assessment to: Any person owning taxable real property in the county or in a taxing district with territory in the county, the board of county commissioners, the prosecuting attorney or treasurer of the county, the board of township trustees of any township with territory within the county, the board of education of any school district with any territory in the county, or the mayor or legislative authority of any municipal corporation with any territory in the county... Full compliance with R.C. 5715.13 and R.C. 5715.19 is necessary before a board of revision can act on the merits of a claim for decrease in valuation. Stanjim Co. v. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233. Only a property owner or an agent of the owner may file a tax complaint. Palm Beach Mall, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 549, 553. In Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 226, the court held that the meaning of the party affected thereby in R.C. 5715.13 is one upon whom the decrease will produce a material influence or effect. Id. at 228. If a party is not affected by the filing of a complaint for a decrease in valuation, the county board of revision has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Buckeye Foods v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 459. Appellant states that it is a party affected as it has the -7- statutory responsibility to administer the condominium property. Because the sprinkler system is a part of the common areas, appellant asserts it has standing to file a valuation complaint just as it would have standing to file a complaint relating to the sprinkler system in the court of common pleas. Further, appellant states that the replacement cost of the sprinkler system had a direct impact on the association's assessments which led to a reduction in the value of the units. As an organization of the unit owners, appellant argues that it was a party affected by the filing of a decrease complaint. A condominium unit owners' association acts as a quasi- government entity which largely parallels the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government. Belvedere Condo. Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 274. This court already has held that appellant had standing to bring suit against the developer, general contractor, and subcontractor of Point East for the damage caused by the defective sprinkler system. Point East Condominium Owners' Assn. v. Cedar House Assoc. (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 704. A condominium unit owners' association is a proper party to bring an action for negligent construction against a builder. Gardens of Bay Landing Condominiums v. Flair Builders, Inc. (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 353. An association also may file an action for alleged misrepresentations regarding heating system pipes against a developer. Arbor Village Condominium Assn. v. Arbor Village Ltd., L.P. (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 499. However, in Arbor Village, the court specifically noted that -8- the statute under which the lawsuit was brought did not require the entity commencing the action to have an ownership interest in the condominium. The instant case does have such a requirement. Although appellant argues it is a party affected under R.C. 5715.13, it is not appellant's responsibility to pay the property taxes for any of the units involved in the complaint. R.C. 5311.11 clearly states that each unit of a condominium property is a separate parcel for purposes of taxation and assessments. That provision includes the percentage of interest in the common areas as part of the separate parcel. Because the units are separate parcels, each unit owner or his or her agent must file a complaint for decrease as it is the unit owner who is responsible for the payment of the tax and would be directly affected by a decrease. Further, appellant does not qualify as one of the entities listed in R.C. 5715.19 which can file a complaint with a board of revision. This alone would divest the board of revision from hearing appellant's complaint. Although R.C. 5311.20 grants appellant the authority to sue or be sued in an action relating to the common areas, the property assessment itself does not relate to the common areas. Appellant argues that the reason for the filing of the complaint for decrease was based solely on the replacement cost of the sprinkler system. But each unit owner's situation is not the same as all of the others. Assessments may be based on a variety of reasons which can differ from unit to unit. Appellant actually has brought a complaint which contains multiple claims. Such a complaint only -9- may be brought if the parcels are in physical contact with each other and have identical ownership. Trebmal Constr., Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1986), 29 Ohio App.3d 312. Ten of the eighty-six units were not a part of the complaint. Therefore, it is unlikely that the remaining seventy-six units are in physical contact with each other. Even if the units are considered to be in physical contact, the units lack identical ownership. Appellant's complaint is for multiple claims and does not comply with Trebmal. The unit owners are not even named on the complaint, only the parcel numbers are listed. The taxing authorities must have the ability to discern who is complaining about the valuation. Buckeye Foods, supra. Because the unit owners are not listed on the complaint, the real parties affected have not filed the complaint. Although appellant is responsible for matters affecting the common areas of Point East, the responsibility for payment of property taxes remains with the individual owners. The unit owners are the ones who would directly reap the benefit of any decrease in the assessment of the value of their property. Because the individual units are separate parcels for purposes of taxation, appellant is not a party affected within the meaning of R.C. 5715.13. Appellant lacked standing to file a complaint for decrease with the board of revision. BTA was correct in upholding the dismissal of appellant's complaint. Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. III. Because of the disposition of the first assignment of error, -10- appellant's second assignment of error is moot. Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Board of Tax Appeals to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. TERRENCE O'DONNELL, P.J. and -11- TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J. CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE N.B. This is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(B) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .