reme court of c clerk of court bta case no. 2013-4317 (lower case no. 12-0953) (real property tax)...
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF OHIO
APPEAL FROM THE OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
COPLEY-FAIRLAWN SCHOOL DISTRICT )BOARD OF EDUCATION )
Appellee,
and
SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION,
Appellant,
and
TEAM RENTALS, LLC
Appellant.
SUPREME COURT CASENUMBER:
14-0955
BTA CASE NO. 2013-4317(Lower Case No. 12-0953)
(REAL PROPERTY TAX)
MERIT BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT, TEAM RENTALS, LLC
Thomas A. Skidmore, Esq. (#0039746)THOMAS A. SKIDMORE CO., L.P.A.One Cascade Plaza, 12th FloorPNC Center BuildingAkron, Ohio 44308Phone: (330) 379-2745Fax: (330) 253-9657E-Mail: thomasskidmore a7rrbiznet®coan
Karrie M. Kalail, Esq. (#0040567)BRITTON, SMITH, PETERS &KALAIL CO., L.P.A3 Summit Drive, Suite 400Cleveland, Ohio 44131Phone: (216) 503-5055Fax: (216) 503-5065E-Mail: kkalail rz ohioedla`;c^.com
Milton C. Rankins, Esq.Assistant Prosecuting AttorneySHERRI BEVAN WALSHSUMMIT COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY53 University Avenue, 6t'' FloorAkron, Ohio 44308Phone: (330) 643-2800
E C (330) 643-8708
NOV 17 Z014
CLERK OF COURTREME COURT_OF C
' `% 1,11{
^ -< .,s`f/ ,. ,- , r.. ,.;J^-
<} e 3 3 aS
y
's Ili P
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................... ................................................................. 1n
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................................................ ................................
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................... ................................................................ 3
ARGUMENT ................................................................... .......................................... 5
Proposition of Law No. I:
The BTA's Decision and Order dated May 9, 2014 is unreasonableand unlawful because the Copley-Fairlawn BOE presented nowitnesses or evidence and therefore failed to meet its requiredburden of proof before the BTA ..............................•,•,,...,.,..,,, .................... 5
CONCLUSION ............... ........................................................................................... 14
PROOF OF SERVICE ................. .............................................................................. 15
APPENDIX Appx, Section
Notice of Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court (6/9/2014) ............................A
Opinion of the Summit County Board of Revision ................. ................. .... B
Opinion of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals ........................ ......................... C
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:Page
Bd, of Edn. of the Dublin City Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
139 Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-Ohio-4543 [11 N.E.3d 206] ............................................ 9
Bd. Qf Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofRevision10th Dist. No. 12AP-682, 2013-Ohio-4504 [2013 WL 5595419] ............................ 7
Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision
115 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-5237, 875 N.E.2d 913 .......................................... 11
Board of Education of the Columbus City Schools v. Franklin County Boardof Revision, (10th Dist., Sept. 30, 2014) 2014 WL 4854550---N.E. ---, 2014 Ohio 4360 ...................................... . ............. 7
CABOT III-OH1M02, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofRevision10th Dist. No. 13AP-232, 2013-Ohio-5301 [2013 WL 6271653] ........................ 8, 9
Colonial Village Ltd. v, Washington Cty. Bd. ofRevision123 Ohio St.3d 268, 2009-Ohio-4975 [915 N.E.2d 1196] .. .................. ..... 8, 12
Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. ofRevision114 Ohio St.3d 493, 2007-Ohio-4641, 873 N.E.2d 298 .................. .,,,, 11
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofRevision v. Fodor
15 Ohio St.2d 52 [239 N.E.2d 25] (1968), sylla.bus ...................... ........................... 7
DaytonMontgomery Cty. PortAuth. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. ofRevision113 Ohio St.3d 281, 2007-Ohio-1948, 865 N.E.2d 22 .................. ........ 8,10
Dublin City Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Rev.
139 Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-Ohio-4543, 11 N.E.3d 206
("Dublin City Schools I") .................................... ....... 9, 11, 12, 13
EOP BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision
106 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-3096 [829 N.E.2d 686] .................. ....................,., 7
FirstCal Indus. 2 Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cly. Bd. of Revision
125 Ohio St.3d 485, 2010-Ohio-1921, 929 N.E.2d 426.................... ......... 11...............
iii
Gahanna-Jefferson Local School Dist. Bd. o f Edn. v. Zaino93 Ohio St.3d 231, 232 [754 N.E.2d 789] (2001) ....................... ........................... ... 8
Gesler v. Worthington Incorne Tax Bd: ofApeals138 Ohio St.3d 76, 2013-Ohio-4986 [3 N.E.3d 1177] .................. .....,,..,,..,,.,,.,, 7
Hilliard City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofRevision139 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-853 [9 N.E.3d 920] .................. a.,_,_,e 7
HIN, L.L. C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision124 Ohio St.3d 481, 2010-Ohio-687 [923 N.E.2d 1144] ........................... .., 7
Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. ofRevision125 Ohio St.3d 103, 2010-Ohio-1040 [926 N.E.2d 302] ......................... ............. 8
Piepho v. li'ranklin Cty. Bd. ofRevision10th Dist. No. 13AP818, 2014-Ohio-2908, 2014 WL 2971058 .............. ..... 7
Sapina v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd of Revision136 Ohio St.3d 188, 2013-Ohio-3028 [992 N.E.2d 1117] ... ............... ................ ...... 8
Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St.3d 399, 2006-Ohio-5856 [856 N.E.2d 954] ............ 8
Shinkle v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. Of Revision1.35 Ohio St.3d 227 2013-Ohio-397 .^ ....................................................................... 6
Simmons v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision
81 Ohio St.3d 47, 49, 689 N.E.2d 22 (1998) ....................................................... .... 13
The Chapel v. Testa, 129 Ohio St.3d 21, 2011-Ohio-545 [950 N.E.2d 142] ............ 8
Vandalia-Butler City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. ofRevision130 Ohio St.3d 291, 2011-Ohio-5078, 958 N.E.2d 131 .................... ..................... 11
W. Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. ofRevision,170 Ohio St. 340, 342, 164 N.E.2d 741 (1960) ........................ 10............................. ..
Wingates L.L. C. v. South-Western City Schools Bd. of Edn.
10th Dist. No. 10AP--846, 2011-Ohio-2372 [2011 WL 1988385] ............................ 8
Worthington City Schools Bd. ofEdn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofRevision129 Ohio St.3d 3, 2011-Ohio-2316 [949 N.E.2d 986] .......................... .................... 8
1V
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Team Rentals, LLC (hereinafter "Team Rentals") is the owner of property located at 484
S. Miller Road, Fairlawn, Ohio 44333 (hereinafter the "Property") (Audio 00:33; 00:57). The
Property is comprised of three separate parcels identified as #s 09-01135, 09-01136 and 09-
01267 (Audio 00:52; 1:00' 1:02). On parcel # 09-01267 stands a two-story multi-tenant
commercial office building (Audio 1:06). The structure consists of approximately 14,229
square feet of gross building area and 13,331 square feet of net leasing area (Audio 4:37; 4:47).
The building was originally constructed in 1992 (Audio 11:25). Photo illustrations of exterior
of the building and aerial views are contained within the comprehensive appraisal.
Theodore Klimczak (hereinafter "Klimczak") is the Managing Member of Team Rentals
(Audio 3:11). Klimczak purchased the building in 2002 for approximately One Million, Four-
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000) (Audio 2:58; 3:04). Since the downturn in the
economy the Property value has decreased and the vacancy rate has remained consistent at
approximately 20%. (Audio 3:27). The Property owner has listed the vacant space for the last 4
years with NAI Cummins Real Estate Agency (Audio 3:36, 18:06). The Property is partially
owner occupied. Team Rentals pays an inflated rental rate of approximately $16.00 per square
foot (psf) (Audio 10:05, 18:14). The first floor consists of Six Thousand, Eight Hundred
(6,800) square feet and is fully occupied (Audio 4:50). The second floor consists of Six
Thousand, Five Hundred (6,500) square feet and is fourteen percent (14%) vacant (Audio 4:58).
In order to retain and attract additional tenants in the Fairlawn area, Team Rentals has
been forced to reduce its lease rates to $10.00 psf (Audio 10:08). The Property does not cash
flow at $10.00 psf (Audio 11:06). Team Rentals essentially subsidizes the Properties operating
expenses by paying an inflated psf rate (Audio 9:26). Since taking ownership in 2002, the
Property value has decreased but the overall taxes have increased from $10,237 (Audio 16:08)
to $16,034 per half (Audio 16:08; 16:14). Real estate taxes have increased over the past eleven
(11) years (Audio 16:03). The Property is facing the need for capital infusion to remain
competitive in the immediate future (Audio 12:45). Rental rates have decreased approximately
37% since he has owned the building (Audio 13:29). Since purchasing the property, it has lost
money every year except 2011 (Audio 9:15). Because of these costs and the lowered tenancy
rate, Klimczak has had to keep the building repairs at a minimum (Audio 11:21).
On September 8, 2011 Team Rentals, LLC obtained a loan from The Huntington
National Bank in the amount of $1,012,500.00 which represented 90% of the appraised value of
the property. (See correspondence from Huntington National Bank attached to the Complaint)
The loan was guaranteed personally by Klimczak. Klimczak has had to take 65,000 out of his
retirement account to meet the required bank loan ratio. (Audio 12:29; 12:20). The term was 7
years (84 months) amortized over 25 years with a balloon payment due at the end of 7 years.
The commercial office building located directly across the street at 2620 Ridgewood
Road, Fairlawn, Ohio is vacant (Audio 13:54; 14:08). That property has 33,500 square feet
commercial office space available. The advertised rate was $9.75 psf (Audio 13:58). Due to an
overabundance of available commercial office space in close proximity, prospective tenants
have become more demanding. This has had a major impact on his ability to market, because
has little ability to negotiate reasonable terms (Audio 14:55; 21:18).
In addition to the testimony of Klimczak, Team Rentals, LLC presented a Summary
Appraisal Report which complied with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP). Applicable data was assembled, analyzed and processed into a final value
conclusion. The 88 page appraisal was comprised of photographs of the property, area and
2
neighborhood data, geographical maps, national trend analysis, State of Ohio trend analysis,
office trend analysis, site data, descriptions of improvements, architectural drawings, highest
and best use, the appraisal process, information from the Summit County Fiscal Office website
and the qualifications of the appraiser, Brent T. Kuwatch, MAI. The report concluded that the
market value of the Property was One Million One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
($1,125,000.00) (Audio 1:09, 4:15).
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 18, 2013, the Appellant, Team Rentals through its Managing Member,
Theodore Klimczak filed a Complaint Against The Valuation of Real Property with the Summit
County Board of Revision (BOR). The Appellee, Copley-Fairlawn School District Board of
Education (hereinafter "Copley-Fairlawn BOE") filed a Counter-Complaint on May 3, 2013.
The matter was set for hearing before the BOR on August 12, 2013.
Team Rentals presented lengthy testimony from Theodore Klimczak. In addition to
testimony, Mr. Klimczak submitted correspondence from his bank, loan information, historical
real estate tax payment records and area real estate comparable leasing rates. In addition Team
Rentals submitted Federal Tax Information like the IRS Form 8825 for the tax years 2011 and
2012 which illustrate Property expenses, costs and loses. Team Rentals also introduced an
appraisal prepared by Brent T. Kuwatch, MAI and Stephanie Rinard, State Appraiser.
The Appellee, Copley-Fairlawn BOE presented no evidence. On August 20, 2014, the
Summit County Board of Revision found that a decrease in valuation was warranted on parcel
09-01267 establishing a new market value of $1,034,030. The BOR found that no change in
valuation was warranted on parcel #'s 09-01135 and 09-01136.
On September 12, 2013 Copley-Fairlawn BOE filed an appeal to the State of Ohio
Board of Tax Appeals (hereinafter the "BTA"). Copley-Fairlawn BOE filed no further
pleadings, submitted no discovery, waived its right to a hearing and presented no evidence.
On May 9, 2014 the BTA filed its Decision and Order reversing the determination of the
Summit County BOR and reverting to the auditors valuation as of January 1, 2012. The BTA
ordered that the property be assessed in conformity with its Decision and Order.
4
On June 9, 2014, the Appellant, Team Rentals filed its Notice of Appeal with this Court.
The Appellant filed a Stipulated Extension until November 17, 2014 within which to file its
Merit Brief.
5
ARGUMENT
PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. I• The BTA's Decision and Order dated May 9, 2014 isunreasonable and unlawful because the Copley-Fairlawn BOE presented no witnesses orevidence and therefore failed to meet its required burden of proof before the BTA
The BTA's Decision and Order states at page 1 that its decision was considered ". ..
upon the notice of appeal, the transcript certified by the BOR pursuant to R.C.5717.01 and the
record of this board's hearing." Review of the transcript before the BOR reveals that Copley-
Fairlawn BOE presented no testimony, no evidence or any pleading before the BOR. It is
equally important to note that the Copley-Fairlawn BOE presented no brief, no argument, no
witness and no evidence before the BTA. In fact the Copley-Fairlawn BOE waived its right to a
hearing and did not appear.
The BTA's Decision and Order, although very brief does set forth some of the pei-tinent
facts which were presented to the BOR including the following:
â That he (Klimczak) was the managing member of the appellee Property owner company
â That the Property suffered from vacancy issues and will be in need of repairs due to age
â That his business was a tenant in the building and had to pay above market rents tocover the Properties costs
â That he could not refinance the Property for the county's assessed value
â That he submitted an appraisal report
â That he submitted income tax schedules from 2011 and 2012
The BTA stated at page 2 that ". ..[w]hen cases are appealed from a board of revision to this
board, an appellant must prove the adjustment in value requested. See, e.g., ,Shinkle v.
Ashtabula Ctv. Bd. OfRevision, 135 Ohio St.3d 227, 2013-Ohio-397." The BTA clearly
recognized that the burden of proof was upon the Copley-Fairlawn BOE as the Appellant to
prove any adjustment. Copley-Fairlawn BOE presented no witness, no documents, made no
argument, filed no brief and waived its right to hearing. There was a complete failure of proof.
6
The BTA instead found that the owner (Klimczak) relied upon an unauthenticated appraisal
report. The BTA ignored the remaining evidence submitted by Team Rentals and valued the
property as originally assessed by the fiscal officer. Copley-Fairlawn BOE had presented no
evidence in support of that valuation.
Several cases in the past several months have been presented to this Court and courts of
appeal which contain almost identical fact patterns. A detailed legal analysis of the applicable
burden of proof is contained in the recent decision of Board of Education of the Columbus City
Schools v. Franklin County Board ofRevision (10`h Dist., Sept. 30, 2014) 2014 WL 4854550,
---N.E. ---, 2014 Ohio 4360. Before deciding that the burden of proof was on the board of
education in appeal to the BTA and that the board of education failed to present evidence to
support the BTA's reinstatement of auditor's valuation, the Court took a historic look at the
duties of the parties and the burden of proof.
The Court reviewed Piepho v. Franklin Cty . BBd. of Revision , 10th Dist. No. 13AP818,
2014-Ohio-2908, 2014 WL 2971058, IT 4-6 which set forth the applicable standard of review
which applies to BTA decisions:
An appellate court reviews decisions of the BTA to determine whether they arereasonable and lawful. Gesler v. Worthington Income Tax Bd. ofAnneals 138Ohio St.3d 76, 2013-Ohio-4986 [3 N.E.3d 1177],1i 10; see Bd. ofEdn. v.Franklin Cty. Bd. ofRevision 10th Dist. No. 12AP-682, 2013-Ohio-4504 [2013WL 5595419],1i 8, citing IIIN. L.L.C. v. Cuvahoga Ctv Bd ofRevision 124Ohio St.3d 481, 2010-Ohio-687 [923 N.E.2d 1144],T 13. The "`fair marketvalue of property for tax purposes is a question of fact, the determination of whichis primarily within the province of the taxing authorities"' and an appellate courtwill not disturb a decision of the BTA "`unless it affirmatively appears from therecord that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful.' " Hilliard City SchoolsBd. ofEdn. v. Franklin Cty Bd. ofReyision 139 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-853[9 N.E.3d 920], ¶ 48, quoting EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuvahoga Ctv Bd. ofRevision, 106 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-3096 [829 N.E.2d 686],1117, quotingCuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofRevision v. Fodor 15 Ohio St.2d 52 [239 N.E.2d 25](1968), syllabus.
7
"The BTA's findings of fact are to be affirmed if supported by reliable and probative evidence,
and the BTA's determination of the credibility of witnesses and its weighing of the evidence are
subject to a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion review on appeal." Worthinkton City Schools
Bd. ofEdn. v. Franklin Ctv . Bd. of Revision 129 Ohio St.3d 3, 2011-Ohio-2316 [949 N.E.2d
986],1f 18, citing Olentangy Local Schools Bd of Edn v . Delaware Cty Bd ofRevision 125
Ohio St.3d 103, 2010-Ohio-1040 [926 N.E.2d 302], ¶ 15, and Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio
St.3d 399, 2006-Ohio-5856 [856 N.E.2d 954],1i 14; Winkates L.L.C. v. South-Western City
Schools Bd. ofEdn. 10th Dist. No. 10AP-846, 2011-Ohio-2372 [2011 WL 1988385].
However, appellate courts will reverse a BTA decision if the decision is based on an incorrect
legal conclusion. The Chapel v. Testa, 129 Ohio St.3d 21, 2011-Ohio-545 [950 N.E.2d 142], ¶
9; see also Satullo at 1i 14, and Gahanna-Jefferson Local SchoolDist Bd -of Edv. Zaino
93 Ohio St.3d 231, 232 [754 N.E.2d 789] (2001).
When a taxpayer challenges the auditor's valuation of property before the BOR, the taxpayer
has the burden to prove entitlement to a reduction in value. See CABOT III-OHIM02 L L C
v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-232, 2013-Ohio-5301 [2013 WL
6271653], IT 27, citing Dayton 1llontgonaery Cty. Port Auth v. 1Vlontzomery Cty Bd. of
Revision. 113 Ohio St.3d 281, 2007-Ohio-1948 [865 N.E.2d 22], T 15. In the instant matter,
Team Rentals met its burden before the BOR which found that a reduction in value was
warranted.
In an appeal to the BTA, the party challenging the BOR's decision has the burden of proof to
establish the party's proposed value as the value of the property. Sanina v. Cuyahoza Cty. Bd.
o Revision 136 Ohio St.3d 188, 2013-Ohio-3028 [992 N.E.2d 1117],1f 26, see also Colonial
VillajeeLtd. v. Washinnton Cty Bd ofReyision 123 Ohio St.3d 268, 2009-Ohio-4975 [915
8
N.E.2d 1196],1i 23. "To prevail on appeal, the appellant rnust present competent and probative
evidence supporting the value the appellant asserts." CABOT III-0H1M02 at ^ 26, citing Bd.
of Edn. of the Dublin City Schools v . Franklin Ctv. Bd ofRevision 139 Ohio St.3d 193,
2013-Ohio-4543 [11 N.E.3d 206],1114. Copley-Fairlawn BOE as the Appellant before the
BTA failed to provide any evidence that had competent or probative value in support of its
appeal.
In Dublin Cdty Schools v. Franklin Cty . BBd. ofRev 139 Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-Ohio-4543,
11 N.E.3d 206 ("Dublin City Schools I"), this Court addressed the identical burden of proof
issue raised in the present case. In that case, the property owner filed a complaint challenging
the auditor's valuation of the property. At the hearing before the BOR, the property owner
presented the testimony of its managing partner and the report and testimony of its appraiser.
The board of education attorney cross-examined the managing partner, but the board of
education did not present any witnesses or additional information as to the valuation of the
property. The only evidence of value presented at the hearing came from the appraiser's
testimony and report. The BOR adopted the appraiser's valuation, noting that the board of
education provided no additional information and recognizing the appraiser as an expert in real
estate appraisal.
The board of education appealed to the BTA. At the BTA hearing, the property owner once
again presented the managing partner and the appraiser as witnesses. The appraiser provided
additional information and adjusted his valuation slightly downward. The board of education
attorney cross-examined the witnesses, but the board of education presented no witnesses, no
evidence of its own valuation, and no evidence in support of the auditor's valuation.
9
After reviewing the evidence, the BTA concluded that the property owner "failed to present
competent and probative evidence to either this board or the BOR in support of its requested
decreases in value." Id. at 1I 9. Specifically, the BTA found that the appraiser's valuation
methodology was improper. It subsequently reversed the BOR's valuation and reinstated the
auditor's valuation.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the property owner contended, among other things,
that: (1) the BTA's decision was unreasonable and unlawful because it reverted to the auditor's
value when the board of education introduced no evidence in support of the auditor's valuation,
(2) the BTA did not hold the board of education to its burden of proof and improperly shifted
the burden of proof to the property owner, and (3) the BTA erred by rejecting the property
owner's valuation methodology.
In response, the board of education asserted that the property owner's appraisal did not
constitute competent and probative evidence of the property's true value. The board of education
further argued that, because the property owner did not satisfy its initial burden to prove that the
appraisal evidenced the true value of the property, the BTA did not improperly shift the burden
of proof to the property owner.
The Supreme Court framed the issue before it: "we must decide whether the BTA properly
reinstated the auditor's valuation of the [property]." Id. at 1f 12. In analyzing this issue, this court
first set forth the relevant burden of proof. This court noted that "the taxpayer bears the burden
to establish the right to a deduction and a taxpayer is " 'not entitled to the deduction claimed
merely because no evidence is adduced contra his claim.' " Id. at ¶ 14, quoting Da ton-
Montgomery Cty. PortAuth v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. ofRevision 113 Ohio St.3d 281, 2007-
Ohio-1948, 865 N.E.2d 22,11 15, quoting W. Industries. Inc. v. Hamilton Cty Bd. ofRevision
10
170 Ohio St. 340, 342, 164 N.E.2d 741 (1960). This Court further noted that "[w]hen a party
appeals a board of revision's decision to the BTA, the appellant, whether it be a taxpayer or a
board of education, has the burden to prove its right to a reduction or increase in the board of
revision's determination of value" and that "[t]o prevail on appeal before the BTA, the appellant
must present `competent and credible evidence' supporting the value the appellant asserts."
CABOT III - OH1M02 at 1f26, citing Bd. OfEdn. OfDublin City Schools v. Franklin Cty
Bd. ofRevision, 139 Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-Ohio-4543 [11 N.E. 3d 206],T14.
Addressing reinstatement of the auditor's valuation, the court recognized that "`the auditor's
initial determination of value for a given tax year possesses an increment of prima-facie
probative force.' " Id. at 1117, quoting FirstCal Indus. 2 Acauisitions L.L C v. Franklin Cty.
Bd. ofRevision, 125 Ohio St.3d 485, 2010-Ohio-1921, 929 N.E.2d 426, 11 31. However, the
court further stated that "when a taxpayer presents evidence contrary to the auditor's valuation
and no evidence is offered to support the auditor's valuation, the BTA may not simply reinstate
the auditor's determination." Id., citing Dayton Montgomery at ^ 27^ Bedford Bd. ofEdn. v
Cuvahoza Ctv. Bd. ofRevision 115 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-5237, 875 N.E.2d 913,1i 11-
12. 12.ather, "`once the BTA had determined that the record contained evidence tending to
negate the county's original valuation, the BTA's duty was to "determine whether the record as
developed by the parties contain[s] sufficient evidence to permit an independent valuation of the
property." ' "Dublin City Schools I at 1117, quoting Vandalia-Butler City Schools Bd. ofEdn
v. Mont,-,omery Cty. Bd. of Revision 130 Ohio St.3d 291, 2011-Ohio-5078, 958 N.E.2d 131, ¶
26, quoting Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty Bd. ofRevision 114 Ohio St.3d 493,
2007-Ohio-4641, 873 N.E.2d 298, ¶ 25. This court noted that the board of education had
11
produced no evidence to support its valuation or the auditor's valuation of the property, nor did
it identify the procedures or methods the auditor had used in valuing the property. Id.
This court then considered the board of education's reliance on Colonial Village, Ltd. v.
Washinzton Cty. Bd. ofRevision 123 Ohio St.3d 268, 2009-Ohio-4975, 915 N.E.2d 1196 ("
Colonial Village "), for the proposition that if the evidence presented is not reliable and is not
probative, the BTA should revert to the auditor's valuation as the default value. The court
distinguished Colonial Village on two grounds. First, the court found Colonial Village factually
distinguishable, as it involved a situation where the BOR initially adopted the auditor's
valuation, and, after finding that the property owner had not met its burden on appeal, the BTA
affirmed the BOR's conclusion reinstating the auditor's valuation. The court noted that in the
case before it, the BOR adopted the property owner's valuation, and, since the property owner
presented competent, credible evidence of valuation and other evidence negating the auditor's
valuation and the board of education did not present any evidence to support its valuation or the
auditor's valuation, the BTA abused its discretion in reinstating the auditor's valuation. Dublin
City Schools I at T 20. This court also noted that the board of education had failed to recognize
that although the Colonial Village court stated that the BTA is justified in retaining the auditor's
valuation when an appellant fails to sustain its burden of proof at the BTA, it also
acknowledged that an exception to that general rule arises when the record affirmatively negates
the validity of the auditor's valuation. Id. The court found that the case before it fell under that
exception because the property owner established a different valuation than that of the auditor,
and the board of education offered no evidence to support its valuation or the auditor's
valuation. Id.
12
This court then determined that the BTA's reinstatement of the auditor's valuation was "`not
justified, because the taxpayer had presented evidence contrary to the auditor's determination to
the board of revision.' " Id. at 1121, quoting Bedford at 1112. This court noted that in Vandalia-
Butler, it clarified its holding in Bedford and explained: "`Even if some evidence tends to
negate the auditor's valuation, it is proper to revert to that valuation when the BTA finds that the
owner has not proved a lower value and there is otherwise "no evidence from which the BTA
can independently determine value." ' " Dublin City Schools I at ¶ 21, quoting Vandalia-Butler
at 1i 24, quoting Simmons v. Cuvahoga Cty Bd. ofRevision 81 Ohio St.3d 47, 49, 689 N.E.2d
22 (1998). This court concluded that in the case before it, evidence existed from which the
BTA could independently determine value. "It is clear from a review of the record that the
auditor's valuation of the property was too high. Specifically, there is no evidence indicating
that the auditor accounted for [the property's] depreciation in value due to market conditions."
Id. "Considering the market conditions presented before the [BOR] and the BTA and the
absence of any evidence in the record addressing whether the auditor took those market
conditions into account, * * * grounds exist for determining that the BTA unreasonably adopted
the auditor's valuation." Id. at ¶ 24. The court concluded that "[w]hen confronted with such
clear evidence negating the auditor's valuation, the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully in
adopting the auditor's valuation rather than determining the taxable value of the property. It
acted `unlawfully by making a finding of value that is affirmatively contradicted by the only
evidence in the record.' " Id. at 1126, quoting Davton 1VlonteomeLy at 1127. This court reversed
the BTA's determination, adopted the "only evidence of valuation contained in the record
presented by [the property owner] through its expert," and reinstated the BOR's valuation. Id. at
1i 27. The court further averred that it was not required to consider whether the valuation
13
methodology utilized in the property owner's appraisal was appropriate because the court had
determined that the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully in failing to conduct its own
independent valuation of the property, taking into account, among other things, the property's
depreciation in value due to the downturn in the economy. Id. at ii 27, fn. 1.
Accordingly, because appellant presented evidence contrary to the auditor's valuation, and
the Copley-Fairlawn BOE offered no evidence in support the auditor's valuation, the BTA erred
in simply reverting to the auditor's valuation. Pursuant to Dublin City Schools II, the matter was
remanded to the BTA to independently determine the taxable value of the subject property.
CONCLUSION
The Board of Education of Columbus City Schools and the Dublin City School II case
contain essentially the same facts and circumstances presented on this appeal. The burden of
proof before the BTA was upon the Copley-Fairlawn BOE. It presented no witnesses, no
evidence, no argument and waived its right to a hearing. It was unreasonable and unlawful for
the BTA to reverse the decision of the Summit County BOR and simply reinstate the auditors
value.
WHERFORE, the Appellant, Team Rentals hereby requests that this Court reverse the
BTA's Decision and Order and reinstate the decision of the Summit County BOR.
WHEREFORE, in the alternative, the Appellant, Team Rentals requests that this Court
remand this matter to the BTA for independent determination in value.
14
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS A. SKIDMORE CO., L.P.A.
.^- '^,^µ° ^'3,^ '' '^'^ ^...
THO S A. DMORE, ESQ. (#0039746)Attor ey for pellant, Team Rentals, LLCOne ascade laza, 12th FloorPNC Center BuildingAkron, Ohio 44308Phone: (330) 379-2745Fax: (330) 253-9657E-Mail: thomasskidmore(a-)rrbiznet. com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing Proof of Filing was sent via regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
this 14th day of November, 2014 to the following:
Karrie M. Kalail, Esq.Paul J. Deegan, Esq.Sarah E. Kutscher, Esq.BRITTON, SMITH, PETERS & KALAIL CO., L.P.A.Attorneys for Appellant, Copley-Fairlawn SD BOE3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 400Cleveland, Ohio 44313
Milton C. Rankins, Esq.Assistant Prosecuting AttorneySHERRI BEVAN WALSHSUMMIT COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY53 University Avenue, 6th FloorAkron, Ohio 44308
15
APPENDIX A
IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF OHIO
APPEAL FROM THE OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SHERRI BEVAN WALSHSUMMIT COUNTY PROSECUTING A:I'TOIZ.NEY-53 University Avenue, 6th FloorAkron, Ohio 44308Phone: (330) 643-2800Fax: (330) HAW)8. ^^^^ ^̂ ^ ^^D'
COPLEY-FAIRLAWN SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPREME COURT CASEBOARD OF EDUCATION ) NUMBEIZ
) .Appellee,
)and ) BTA CASE NO. 2013-4317
) (Lower Case No. 12-0953)SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, )
) (REAL PROPERTY TAX)Appellant, )
) _ ..
and j
)TEAM RENTALS, LLC ) } j
Appellant. );
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Thomas A. Skidmore, Esq. (#0039746) Karrie M. Kalail, Esq. (#0040567)TIIOMAS A. SKIDMOI2E CO., L.P.A. BRITTON, SMITII, PETERS &One Cascade Plaza, 12'h Floor KALAIL CO:, L.PeAPNC Center Building 3 Sunu-nit Drive, Suite 400Akron, Ohio 44308 Cleveland, Ohio 44131Phone: (330) 379-2745 Phone: (216) 503-5055Fax: (330) 253-9657 Fax: (216) 503-5065E-Mail: tho:tnass:ki.dtn.o^ e ic1 r6iztli t.c.4:«^ E-Mail: 1Llcalail!a2,,ohioec[1aw.co:tn
Milton C. Rankins, Esq.Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF OHIO
APPEAI., F.RONI THE OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
COPLEY-FAIRLAWfii SCHOOL DISTRICT ) SITPREME COTJRT CASEBOARD OF EDUCATION ) NUMBERe
)Appellee, )
)and. ) BTA CASE NO. 2013-4317
) (Lower Case No, 12-0953)SIJNIIMIT COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, )
) (REAL PROPERTY TAX)Appellant, ) .
)and )
)TEAM RENTALS, LLC )
)Appellant. )
The Appellant, TEAM RENTALS, LLC by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby
gives notice of its appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of ®hio, from a Decision and Order
of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, rendered on the 9th day of May, 2014, a copy of which is
attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and which is incorporated herein as though fully rewritten in this
Notice of Appeal. The errors complained of are attached hereto as "Exhibit B," which is
incoaporated herein by reference."
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS A. SKIDMORE CO., L.P.A.
TIIO ^ S A. S^1)MORE, ESQ. (#0039746)One C scade Pl a, 12ti' Floor ^PNC enter BuildingAkr n, Ohio 44308Phone: (330) 379-2745Fax: (330) 253-9657E-Mail: tl_ioniass?.idnlore(i^,.r^()iznct.coni
OHIO BOARD TAX APPEALS
Copley-Fairlawn City School District Board ) CASE NO(S). 2013-4317of Education,
Appellant(s),
vs.
Summit County Board of Revision, et al.,
Appellees.APPEARA.NCES:
))))
)
))
)
(REAL PROPERTY TAX)
DECISION AND ORDER
For the Appellant(s) - Britton, Smith, Peters & Kalail Co., LPAKarrie M. Kalail3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 400Cleveland, Ohio 44131
For the Countyy - Sherri Bevan WalshAppellees Summit County Prosecuting Attorney
MiIton C. RankinsAssistant Prosecuting Attorney53 University Avenue, 6t1' FloorAkron, Ohio 44308
For the Appellee - Thomas SkidmoreProperty Owner Attom.ey at Law ^XHIBI^°
1 Cascade. Plaza, 12`I' Floor ,^Akron, Ohio 44308
^Entea:edMAY o`9 2^'
Mr. Williamson, Mr. Johrendt, and Mr. Harbarger concur.
Appellant(s) appeals a decision of the board of revision ("BOR") which determined the value
of the subject real property, parcel number(s) 09-01267, 09-01135, and 09-01136. This maner is now
considered upon the notice of appeal, the transcript certified by the BOR pursuant to R.C. 5717.01, and the_ 9 . . . . . .
recordof this board's hearing. The subject's total true value was initially assessed at $1,362,930. A decrease
complaint was filed with the BOR seeking a reduction in value to $1,125,000. The appellant filed a
countercomplaint advocating for the retention of the fiscal officer's values.
At the hearing before the BOR, the subject property was described as a multi-tenant office
building. Theodore Klimczak, managing member of the appellee property owner company, testified that the
subject property has suffered from vacancy issues and wili be in need of repairs due to its age. He explained
that his business is a tenant in the building, so he has to pay above market rents to cover the subject property's
costs, and he could not refinance the building for the county's assessed value. The property owner presented
an appraisal report, absent its author, completed for refinancing purposes, with an effective date of June 14,
2011 in support of its opinion of value of $1,125,000, as well as income tax schedules from 2011 and 2012.
Counsel for the appellant then cross-examined K,limczak. The BOR issued a decision decreasing the initially
assessed valuation to $1,125,000' based upon the appraisal report submitted, which led to the present
appeal(s). At the hearing before this board, counsel for the property owner requested that the decision of the
BOR be upheld.
When cases are appealed from a board of revision to this board, an appellant must prove the
adjustment in value requested. See, e.g., Shinkle v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Revision, 135 Ohio St.3d 227, 2013-
Ohio-397. As the Supreme Court of Ohio has consistently held, "[t]he best method of determining value,
when such inforniation is available, is an actual sale of such property between one who is willing to sell but
not compelled to do so and one who is willing to buy but not compelled to do so. **^ However, suclz
information is not usually available, and thus az1 appraisal becomes necessary."' State ex nel. Park Invest. Co.
v. Bd of Tax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 410. In this instance, there exists no evidence the subject property
"recently" transferred through a qualifyi..ng sale, nor did the property owner provide a competent appraisal of
the subject property, attested to by a qualified expert, for the tax lien date in zssue.3 Instead, the property
owner relied upon an unauthenticated appraisal report completed for refinancina purposes effective six
months before the tax lien date at issue. Having found no basis to support the property owner's requested
reduction, we must now turn to the BOR's determinations. In considering the record before us in its entirety,
we find the BOR's determinations to reduce the subject's values to be unsupported by competent and
probative evidence. Under such circumstances, we are mindful of the court's decision in Ilandalia-Butler City
Schools Bd ofEdn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd ofRevision (2011), 130 Ohio St.3d 291, 2011-Ohiv-5078, at 121.
Accordingly, based upon the record and discussion herein, we determine that the value of the
subject property as of January 1, 2012, was as originally assessed by the fiscal officer as follows:
' The BOR issued a decision for each parcel. The decrease in value was only applied to parcel 09-01267. For theremaining two parcels, the BOR issued decisions indicating no change in value.2 Justice Pfeifer's concurrence in LTC Properties, Inc. v. Licking C. Bd. of Revision, 133 Ohio St.3d 111, 2012-Ohio-3930, echoes the court's prior observations: "All property owners and their counsel know that they have a heavy burdento overcome when challenging a valuation. 'k** [I]f a[n appellant] wants to challenge a valuation, it should send acertified appraiser or other qualified expert, not an employee, however experienced. It is well known that the onlynonexperts competent to testify as to valuation are owners. Finally, the best way to challenge a valuation is with aproper appraisal, which was not submitted in this case." Id. at ^j28. The court has also held that "[w]hile an owner maytestify as to the value of his or her property, there is no requirement that the finder offact accept that value as the truevalue of the property." YIrJJKlnvestments, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd of Revision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 29, 32. Rather,this board is charged with the responsibility of determining value based upon evidence properly contained within therecord which must be found to be both competent and probative. Strongsville Bd of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofRevision (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 402, 405; Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. vo Bd of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13,paragraph two of the syllabus.
3 When boards of revision and this board are presented with nothing more than lists of raw sales data, assessed-values ofother properties, unauthenticated "opinions of value" developed using unconfirmed Internet/software packages,appraisals submitted without expert testimony which are undertaken for purposes other than tax valuation oftenconcluding to values for dates other than the tax lien date in issue, a trier of fact is left to speculate how commondifferences, e.g., location, size, quality of construction of improvements, nature of amenities, date of sale as opposed totax lien date, etc., may affect a valuation determination. See, generally, Freshwater v. Belmont Cty. Bd of Revision(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 26; WJJK Investments, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3 d 29; TheAppraisal of Real Estate (13`"' Ed. 2008); Copp v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Sept. 8, 2009), BTA No. 2007-Z-692,unreported.
2
PARCEL NUMBER TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE
09-01267 $1,271,960 $445,190
09-01135 $ 23,440 $ 8,200
09-01136 $ . 67,530 $ 23,640
It is the order of the Board of Tax Appeals that the subject property be assessed in confozmity
with this decision and order.
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and
complete copy of the action taken by the Boardof Tax Appeals of the State of Ohio and entered
upon its journal this day, with respect to thecaptioned matter.
A.J. Groeber, Board Secretaiy
3
EXHIBIT B
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1:
The Board of Tax Appeals' Decision and Order dated May 9, 2014 finding the true value of theAppellant's real property for Parcel #09-01267 was $1,271,960.00 with taxable value of$445,190.00 and Parcel #09-01135 with true value of $23,440 and taxable value of$g,200.00and Parcel #09-01136 with true value of $67,530.00 and taxable value of $23,640.00 areunreasonable and unlawfui.
ASSYGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2:
The Appellee, Copley-Fairlawn School District Board of Education, presented no evidencevaluation in relation to the Appellant, Team Rentals, LLC properties, failed to meet its burden ofproof as to the value requested and therefore the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable andunlawful.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3:
The Board of Tax Appeals Decision and Order dated May 9, 2014 is premised upon no evidencesubmitted by the Appellee, Copley-Fairlaw School District Board of Education and thereforelacks the requisite elements to reverse a Board of Revision decision which was based upondocumentation, testimony and evidence submitted which said reversal is unreasonable andunlawful.
ASSIGNiVIENT OF ERROR NO. 4:
The Board of Tax Appeals Decision and Order dated May 9, 2014 reinstating the value ofParcel's owned by the Appellant, TEAM RENTALS, LLC is unlawful and unreasonable becausethe Appellee failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the character of the property or marketconditions had not changed.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5:
The Board of Tax Appeals' Decision and Order dated May 9, 2014 violates Article XII, Section2 of the Ohio Constitution which requires that property must be taxed by uniform rule accordingto value.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6:
The Board of Tax Appeals' Decision and Order dated May 9, 2014 violates Article I; Section 2of the Ohio Constitution which provides that Government is institued for the equal protectionand benefit of the people.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 8;
The Board of T'ax Appeals' Decision and Order violates the Equal Protection Clause ofAnxendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States of America.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
q A copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was sent via regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
this,(0 day of June, 2013 to the following:
Karrie M. Kalail, Esq.Paul J. Deegan, Esq.Sarali E. Kutscher, Esq.BRITTON, SMITH, PETERS &KA.LAIL CO., L.P.A.Attorneys for Appellant, Copley-Fairlawn SD BOE3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 400Cleveland, Ohio 44313
Milton C. Rankins, Esq.Assistaiit Prosecuting AttorneySHERRI BEVAN WALSHSUMMIT COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY53 lJniversity Avenue, 6th FloorAkron, Ohio 44308
APPENDIX B
^11tJLJ1V ! I ur O1J1V.UYJl11
BOARD OF REVISION
RUSSELL M. PRY, ExecutiveMember
DANIEL M. IiOIiRIGAN, Clerk of CourtsMember
Date: August 20, 2013
1>,AliJEL'rI'4 !'^°l. sJ^,,..;(yA,JAs)A.) l_.Ft1, l,rE'ir,. 1'ib4;aj1 [„/Alb6^i
Secretary
Notice 5715.19 O.R.C.
Property Owner: Team Rental LLCComplainant's Agent: Attorney Michael MackComplainant other than owner: Copley-Fairlawn City School District Board of EducationOther:
RE: BOR# 12-0953, AParcel# 09-01135, et al
NO CHANGE IN VALUATION IS WARRANTED
MARKET VALUE$ 23 44p*If applicable, see attached decision sheet for multiple parcels*
If a value chaa^ ewas ranted lt ^111 become efl`eetive for the tax ea^ in which theec^na laint tivas fied. If ou dvsa -ee wi^b ll^ls Intlira o^a ma file an a eal wJltla theBoard of Ta^ 1^ eals a^ ^vlumbus or 1o the Court of Oommora Pleas 1n Alcron.
The Fiscal Officer is hereby directed to correct the records and duplicate in accordance with thisfinding. It is further ordered that the secretary transmit to the complainagit by mail a copy of saidorder.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the Board of Revision at330-926-2559 or at bmt'a?mmmit^.
Sincerely,Kristen M. Scalise, CPA CFEFiscal Officer, County of SummitBoard of Revision
cc: Certified mail receipt #:Owner: 917199 99917031 9645 6995Complainant's A.gent: 91 7199 9991 7(}31 9645 7008Complainant other than owner: 91 7199 9991 70361 9645 7596Other:
2525 State Road e Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223
330-926-2559 0 Fax 330-926-2498
The Board of Revision metnbers have reviewed the "Complaint Against the Valuation of RealProperty" for the parcel listed above. Based on the merits of the complaint and any supportingdocumentation presented, the following decision is hereby rendered:
® ^
-2-
PARCEL NC).: 09-01136
NO CHANGE IN VALUATION IS WARRANTED
MARKET VALUE $-- 67153 (}
KRISTEN M. SCALISE CPA, CFEBoard of Revision2525 State Rd. Room 153
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223330 926-2559/2558
-3_
PARCEL NO.: 09-01267
DECREASE IN VALUATION IS WARRANTED
NEW MARKET VALUE S 1(}34030
KRISTEN M. SCALISE CPA, CFEBoard of Revision2525 State Rd. Room 153
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223330 926-2559/2558
APPENDIX C
OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
Copley-Fairlawn City School District Boardof Education,
Appellarzt(s),
vs.
Summit County Board of Revision, et al.,
Appellees.APPEARANCES:
)))))))
))
)
CASE NO(S), 20 t 3-4317
(REAL PROPERTY TAX)
DECISION AND ORDER
For the Appellant(s) - Britton, Smith, Peters & Kalail Co., LPAKarrie M. Kalail3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 400Clevelatid, Ohio 44131
For the CoijntyAppellees
For the AppelleeProperty Owner
EnteredMAY 09
- Sherri Bevan WalshSummit County Prosecuting AttorneyMilton C. RankinsAssistant Prosecutiiyg Attorney53 University Averiue, 6"' FloorAkron, Ohio 44308
- Tlionias SkidrnoreAttorney at Law1 Cascade Plaza, 12`t, FloorAkron, Ohio 44308
Mr. Williamson, Mr. Johrendt, and Mr. Harbarger concur.
Appellant(s) appeals a decision of the board of revision ("BOR") which determined the value
of the subject real property, parcel number(s) 09-01267, 09-01135, and 09-01136. This matter is now
considered upon the notice of appeal, the transcript certified by the BOR pursuant to R.C. 5717.01, and the
record'•of this board's hearing. The subject's total true value was initially assessed at $1,362,930. A decrease
coanplaint was filed with the BOR. seeking a reduction in value to $1,125,000. The appellant filed a
countercarnplaint advocating for the retention of the fiscal officer's values.
At the hearing before the BOR, the subject property was described as a nxulti-tenaiit office
building. Theodore Klimczak, managing member of the appellee property owner coznpany, testified that the
subject property has suffered from vacancy issues and will be in need of repairs due to its age. He explained
that his business is a tenant in the building, so he has to pay above market rents to cover the subject property's
costs, and he could not refinance the building for the county's assessed value. The property owner presented
an appraisal report, absent its author, completed for refinancing purposes, with an effective date of Tur.-ie 14,
2011 in support of its opinion of value of $1,I25,000, as well as income tax schedules froni 2011 and 2012.
Counsel for the appellant then cross-examined Klimczak. The BOR issued a decision decreasing the initially
assessed valuation to $1,125,0001 based upon the appraisal report submitted, which led to the present
appeal(s). At the hearing before this board, counsel for the property owner requested that the decisiorl of the
BOR be upheld.
When cases are appealed from a board of revision to this board, an appellant rnust prove the
adjustment in value requested. See, e.g., Shinkle v. Ashtabula Ct^. Bcl: ofRevision, 135 Ohio St.3d 227, 2013-
Ohio-397. As the Supreme Court of Ohio has consistently held, "[t]he best method of determining value,
when such inforniation is available, is an actual sale of such property between one who is willing to sell but
not compelled to do so and one who is willing to buy but not compelled to do so. * ** However, such
itzformation is not usually available, and thus an appraisal becomes necessary."' State ex rel. Park Invest. Co.
v. Bd of Tax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 410. In this instance, there exists no evidence the subject property
"recently" transferred through a qualifying sale, nor did the property owner provide a competent appraisal of
the subject property, attested to by a qualified expert, for the tax lien date in dssue.' Instead, the property
o'wner relied upon an unauthenticated appraisal report completed for refinancing purposes effective six
inonths before the tax lien date at issue. Having found no basis to support the property owner's requested
reduction, we must now turn to the BOR's determinations. In considering the record before us in its entirety,
we find the BOR's deteri-n.inations to reduce the subject's values to be unsupported by competent and
probative evidence. Under such circumstances, we are mindful of the court's decision in Vandalia-Butler Czty
1^chools Bd. ofEdn. v. tllontgomery Cty. Bd. ofRevision (2011), 130 Ohio St.3d 291, 2011-Ohio-507$, at T21.
Accordingly, based upon the record and discussion herein, we determine that the value of the
subject property as of January 1, 2012, was as originally assessed by the fiscal officer as follows:
1 The BOR issued a decision for each parcel. The decrease in value was only applied to parcel 09-01267. For theremaining two parcels, the BOR, issued decisions indicating no change in value.2 Justice Pfeifer's concurrence in LTC Properties, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd of Revision, 133 Ohio St.3d 111, 2012-Ohio-3930, echoes the court's prior observations:. "All property owners and their counsel know that they have a heavy burdento overcome when challenging a valuation. *** [I]f a[n appellant] wants to challenge a valuation, it should send acertified appraiser or other qualified expert, not an employee, however experienced. It is well known that the onlynonexperts competent to testify as to valuation are owners. Finally, the best way to challenge a valuation is with aproper appraisal, which was not submitted in this case." Id. at128. The court has also held that "[w]hile an owner maytestify as to the value of his or her property, there is no requirement that the finder offact accept that value as the truevalue of the property. YT JJK Investments, Inc, v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 29, 32. Rather,this board is charged with the responsibility of determining value based ttpon evidence properly contained within therecord which mtust be found to be both competent and probative. Strongsville Bd. of Ed'n. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofRevision (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 402, 405; Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13,paragraph two of the syllabus.
3 When boards of revision ai^d this board are presented with nothing R-rrore than lists of raw sales data, assessed values ofother properties, unauthenticated "opinions of value" developed using unconfimaed lnternetlsoftware packages,appraisals submitted without expert testimony which are undertaken for purposes other than tax valuation oftenconcluding to values for dates other than the tax lien date in issue, a trier of fact is left to speculate how commondifferences, e.g., location, size, quality of construction of improvements, nature of amenities, date of sale as opposed totax lien date, etc., niay affect a valuation deterrnination. See, generally, Fi•eshwater v. Belmont Ctt1. Bd of Revisior(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 26; WJJK Investments, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 29; ThcAppraisal of Real Estate (13"` Ed. 2008); Copp v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Sept. 8, 2009), BTA No. 2007-Z-692,unreported.
2
PARCEL NUMBER TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE
09-01267 $1,271,964 $445,190
09-01135 $ 23,440 $ 8,200
09-01136 $ 67,530 $ 23,640
It is the order of the Board of Tax Appeals that the subject property be assessed in confoiznitgr
with this decision and order.
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and
complete copy of the action takeii by the Board
of Tax Appeals of the State of Ohio and eiitered
upon its jouruat this day, with respect to the
captiorzed matter.
A.J. Groeber, Board Secretary
3