The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of High Mill Holdings, L.L.C. v. Kinsey, affirming a lower court's decision to dismiss claims made by High Mill Holdings and Stone Crossing SNF & ALF Holding, LLC against Stark County Auditor Angela Kinsey. The court's decision centers around the recovery of conveyance fees that the companies paid under protest, which they argued were collected unlawfully.
This ruling affects High Mill Holdings and Stone Crossing, as they sought to recover a total of $35,467.36 in conveyance fees they paid to the county. The court's decision underscores the importance of following specific legal procedures when contesting tax payments.
Background
High Mill Holdings and Stone Crossing filed their initial complaint on June 25, 2025, asserting claims of conversion and replevin against Kinsey. Initially, the complaint named the Stark County Recorder as the defendant, but it was amended on July 10, 2025, to include Kinsey. The dispute arose after both companies attempted to file conveyances of real property, claiming that the transactions were exempt from conveyance fees.
In February 2025, High Mill Holdings submitted a DTE-100 EX form, stating that their transaction was exempt from fees. Kinsey requested additional documentation to verify this claim. Similarly, Stone Crossing submitted a DTE-100 form for their transaction, but Kinsey also sought further documentation from them. Despite providing affidavits asserting that no money or valuable consideration was exchanged, Kinsey refused to endorse the deeds, leading to the companies paying the fees under protest.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Robert G. Montgomery, ruled that the trial court was correct in dismissing the claims. The court found that the statutory procedure outlined in Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 2723.01 et seq. is the exclusive remedy for recovering taxes and assessments paid to a taxing authority. The court stated, "As the Plaintiffs failed to file a notice of intention to sue under sections 2723.01 to 2723.05, inclusive at the time the conveyance fees were paid, the Court finds that Ohio Revised Code Sections 2723.01 et seq. bar the Plaintiffs' claims."
The court emphasized that the claims of conversion and replevin were not appropriate for recovering the conveyance fees, as the statutory framework provides a specific process for taxpayers seeking refunds of erroneously collected taxes. The trial court had previously dismissed the claims with prejudice, meaning that the companies could not refile the same claims.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for taxpayers in Ohio. It reinforces the notion that taxpayers must strictly adhere to the statutory requirements when contesting tax payments. Failure to comply with the necessary procedures, such as providing a written protest and notice of intent to sue, can bar any claims for recovery. The decision serves as a reminder that taxpayers must be diligent in following legal protocols to avoid losing their rights to contest tax payments.
Additionally, the ruling sets a clear precedent regarding the exclusive nature of R.C. 2723.01 et seq. as the only means for taxpayers to seek refunds for overpaid taxes. This may deter similar claims in the future if taxpayers do not follow the required procedures.
What's Next
As the ruling has been affirmed, it is unlikely that the case will be appealed further. The court's decision appears to close the matter for High Mill Holdings and Stone Crossing. There are no related cases pending that could affect this ruling.