Courts Clash Over Constitutionality of Limits on Real Estate Tax Increase Complaints by Non-owners | Zaino Hall & Farrin

By Robert C. Maier, MA, JD and Stephen K. Hall, JD, LLM

On April 28, 2026, in three separate decisions, the 10^th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County invalidated as unconstitutional certain restrictions that Am.Sub.H.B. No. 126, enacted in 2022, imposed on the filing by non-owners of complaints that seek to increase the tax value of other people’s real estate.  Bahorek v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2026-Ohio-1523; 2026-Ohio-1524; and 2026-Ohio-1526.  We have previously addressed the H.B. 126 restrictions in our past Buzzes here, here, and here. To reiterate:  under H.B. 126, school boards and property owners could only file valuation complaints against property they did not own if three conditions were satisfied: (1) the property at issue must have sold in an arm’s-length transaction, (2) the sale must have occurred before, not after, the tax lien date, and (3) the sale price must indicate a value that exceeds the auditor’s valuation by $500,000 (the threshold increases in later years). The 10^th District invalidated those three restrictions in a holding based upon the uniform-rule requirement of the Ohio Constitution, art. XII, § 2.

Specifically, the appeals court found that the H.B. 126 restrictions on the filing of increase complaints “discriminate between different types of property subject to undervaluation complaints”:  under H.B. 126, “some real properties obtain a safe harbor from undervaluation complaints, some do not.” 2026-Ohio-1523 at ¶ 25; 2026-Ohio-1524 at ¶ 24; 2026-Ohio-1526 at ¶ 29.  The court held that “[i]mposing the R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) conditions on the filing of an undervaluation complaint blatantly treats some properties differently; it exposes some properties to a correction in valuation but allows others to remain undervalued.  R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) is therefore a systematic and intentional departure from the uniform valuation of real property.  As a result, R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) violates the uniform rule and is unconstitutional under Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution.”  2026-Ohio-1523 at ¶ 27; 2026-Ohio-1524 at ¶ 26; 2026-Ohio-1526 at ¶ 31.

Having determined that the H.B. 126 restrictions in R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) violated property tax uniformity, the court next determined that the remedy lay in holding invalid division (A)(6)(a) and an earlier mention of “both of” the conditions imposed by H.B. 126—the court thereby left in place H.B. 126’s other requirement that political subdivisions such as school boards authorize the filing of complaints at a public meeting, which is set forth at R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(b).

ZHF Observation:  The court’s remedy of severing and invalidating R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) in its entirety not only reinstates the rights of owners of other taxable property in the county to file increase complaints, such as the appellant Bahorek, but also reinstates the right of “legislative authorities” such as school boards to file increase complaints without H.B. 126’s restrictions.  If upheld, this ruling re-opens the door for school boards to broadly seek to increase property values.

The three 10^th District decisions disposed of 95 appeals.  The third decision, 2026-Ohio-1526, disposed of 93 appeals and, unlike the other two decisions, addressed the question whether Bahorek had standing:  the court found that Bahorek did have standing because (1) the statutes permitted him to appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals to the court, and (2) Bahorek was aggrieved by the adverse decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.  The appeals court did not, however, extend its analysis to whether Bahorek had suffered a sufficiently particularized injury under H.B. 126, or whether his being permitted to file a valuation complaint would redress that injury.

Finally, the 10^th District made a finding that its decisions were in conflict with a decision issued by the 5^th District Court of Appeals in 2024:  Gillis v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2024-Ohio-5669 (5^th Dist.).  In that decision, the 5^th District held that R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) did not violate the uniform-rule requirement because that provision “does not regulate the valuation of the property.”  Id. at ¶ 22.  Under the Ohio Supreme Court’s Practice Rules, parties to the 10^th District appeals have 45 days to file a notice of certified conflict, after which the Supreme Court will verify the conflict and determine the issues to be briefed.  Sup.Ct.Prac.R. 8.01, 8.02.  It seems highly probable that the Supreme Court will review one or more of the 10^th District decisions, and the high court’s consideration and resolution of the conflict could take a year.

Reach out to Robert Maier, Stephen Hall or any of our ZHF professionals with any questions.