Go Syfert

Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 5715.13 (2026)

Application for decrease in valuation; electronic complaint and application

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

March 27, 2020

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 197 - 133rd General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, the county board of revision shall not decrease any valuation unless a party affected thereby or who is authorized to file a complaint under section 5715.19 of the Revised Code makes and files with the board a written application therefor, verified by oath and signature, showing the facts upon which it is claimed such decrease should be made.

(B) The county board of revision may authorize a policy for the filing of an electronic complaint under section 5715.19 of the Revised Code and the filing of an electronic application therefor under this section, subject to the approval of the tax commissioner. An electronic complaint need not be sworn to, but shall contain an electronic verification and shall be subscribed to by the person filing the complaint: "I declare under penalties of perjury that this complaint has been examined by me and to the best of my knowledge and belief is true, correct, and complete."

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 54 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Groveport Madison Local Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 2013 Ohio 4627 (Ohio 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Groveport Madison Local Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 2013 Ohio 4627 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 8× “” {¶ 10} In hearing and ruling on complaints, a board of revision must first examine the complaint to determine whether it meets the jurisdictional requirements set forth in R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19. Elkem at 686. The board must dismiss any complaint that does not meet those…”

Bd. of Educ. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 744 N.E.2d 751 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 8× “*310 The syllabus to Sharon Village provides, “The preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision on behalf of a taxpayer constitute the practice of law.”

Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Lake Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 80 Ohio St. 3d 591 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 11× “We find that the appellants in these cases substantially complied with the requirements of R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19 in seeking a decrease in the valuation of their property, and we therefore overrule the determinations of the Board of Tax Appeals.”

Sharon Vill. Ltd. v. Licking Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 678 N.E.2d 932 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 5× “See R.C. 5715.13. Instead, the sole issue presented to us is whether appellants’ agent, a nonlawyer, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he prepared and filed the complaints with the BOR.”

Snavely v. Erie Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 678 N.E.2d 1373 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 5× “In addition, in this case the failure of the owner to sign or verify in writing his written opinion of value would be another factor that may be weighed by the BOR.”

Soc'y Nat'l Bank v. Wood Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 692 N.E.2d 148 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 6× “Society contends that it met all the requirements of R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19, and therefore had standing to file a complaint for a decrease in the valuation of the real property.”

Vill. Condos. Owners Ass'n v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 833 N.E.2d 1230 (Ohio 2005). · cites it 7× “VCOA contends that because it is a “person owning property in the county” within the meaning of R.”

Bd. of Educ. v. Bd. of Revision, 85 Ohio St. 3d 156 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 4× “line of cases is inapplicable to these two corporations because the plain language of R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19 provides statutory authority for a corporate officer to file a complaint with a county board of revision.”

Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision, 1998 Ohio 179 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 11× “Petkovic, for appellees Perry Local Schools Board of Education and Willoughby Eastlake Board of Education.”

Foods v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 678 N.E.2d 917 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 3× “19, which sets forth the general complaint process, and R.C. 5715.13, which prevents a board of revision from *461 decreasing any valuation complained of unless filed by “the party affected thereby or his agent.”

NASCAR Holdings, Inc. v. Testa (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 9118 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 2× “R.C. 5715.13 provided that either the owner itself or an “agent” could perform the filing.”

Dayton Supply & Tool Co. v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 856 N.E.2d 926 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 2× “” For various delineated reasons, the court concluded that the preparation and filing of a property-valuation complaint under R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19 “should be left to an attorney to handle.”

Show all 54 citing cases →

— Ohio Rev. Code § 5715.13(A) — 2 cases

Groveport Madison Local Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 2013 Ohio 4627 (Ohio 2013). “” {¶ 10} In hearing and ruling on complaints, a board of revision must first examine the complaint to determine whether it meets the jurisdictional requirements set forth in R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19. Elkem at 686. The board must dismiss any complaint that does not meet those…”

Columbus City Schs. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 5823 (Ohio 2017).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.