Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this real-property-valuation case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the decision of the Clark County Board of Revision (BOR) retaining Clark County auditor’s determination of the current agricultural use valuation (CAUV) for the subject property for tax year 2013, holding that there was no merit to Appellant’s arguments on appeal.Appellant, the property owner, challenged the CAUV. The BOR rejected Appellant’s claims. The BTA affirmed. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that the BTA misapplied the burden of proof and improperly applied a presumption of validity to the BOR’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the BTA, holding that Appellant’s arguments were without merit. View "Johnson v. Clark County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this appeal involving the real-property valuation of a “racino” in Cuyahoga County, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) rejecting the appraisal of the Warrensville Heights City School District Board of Education and adopting that of Harrah’s Ohio Acquisition Company, LLC, the property owner, holding that the BTA committed legal error in assessing the school board’s appraisal evidence.This was the third appeal before the Supreme Court involving the valuation of the property at issue. Unlike the two earlier cases, both the school board and Harrah’s submitted appraisal evidence. The BTA ultimately valued the property at $22 million. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding that the BTA committed legal error in assessing the appraisals presented. View "Harrah's Ohio Acquisition Co., LLC v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) valuing a Red Lobster restaurant in the village of Orange for tax year 2014 according to the sale price, disregarding the appraisal evidence, holding that because the property owner’s appraisal was relevant evidence, the BTA should have considered and weighed it.The property owner (Appellant) brought the property in December 2014 from an LLC that bought the property in August 2014. The county auditor assessed the property at just over $2 million. The Board of Revision (BOR), however, valued the property at $2,925,900 based on the August 2014 sale. Appellant appealed, arguing that the appraisal it presented to the BOR, rather than either of the 2014 sale prices, reflected the true value of the property. The BTA refused to consider the appraisal and retained the BOR’s valuation. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision and remanded the cause for the BTA to weigh and address Appellant’s appraisal evidence based on the changes to Ohio Rev. Code 5713.03 made by 2014 Am.Sub.H.B.No.487. View "Spirit Master Funding IX, LLC v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this property-tax appeal concerning the 2014 tax valuation of a shopping center consisting of five separate real estate parcels, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), holding that the BTA erred by excluding evidence offered to show the value of one parcel and by failing fully to consider the appraisal evidence.The auditor in this case assigned an aggregate value to the parcels of $22,233,850 as of the tax-lien date. Thereafter, the center was sold along with other properties. Both the Board of Revision and the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) valued the individual parcels by reference to the aggregate price of $47,479,830. Property owner Beavercreek Towne Stations, LLC and one of its tenants, Kohl’s Illinois, Inc., appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the BTA erred by excluding Kohl’s as a party and excluding the appraisal evidence concerning the value of the Kohl’s parcel. The Supreme court agreed, holding (1) the BTA erred by excluding evidence offered to show the value of the Kohl’s parcel; and (2) the BTA’s failure to fully consider the appraisal evidence necessitated vacating the BTA’s decision and remanding the cause pursuant to Terraza 8, LLC v. Franklin County Board of Revision, 83 N.E.3d 916 (Ohio 2017), and Bronx Park S. III Lancaster, LLC v. Fairfield County Board of Revision, __ N.E.3d __ (Ohio 2018). View "Beavercreek Towne Station, LLC v. Greene County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this property-tax appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) arriving at an independent valuation of the subject property by using probative aspects of the two expert reports presented by the two parties, holding that the BTA’s determination was valid and did not violate constitutionally required uniformity.At the hearing before the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR), the Property Owner presented appraiser testimony regarding the value for 2014 and 2015 of the property. Groveport-Madison Local Schools Board of Education presented testimony from a different appraiser, as well as a consulting report. The BOR adopted the Property Owner’s appraisal value. On appeal, the BTA arrived at its independent valuation of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA discharged its duty to perform an independent valuation of the property; and (2) the BTA’s independent determination of value did not violate the uniformity required by Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution. View "Groveport Madison Local Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this challenge brought by a property owner seeking a decrease in the valuation of its property, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopting the value determined by the Montgomery County Board of Revision (BOR), holding that the BTA did not misapply the principles delineated in Bedford Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 875 N.E.2d 913.The Huber Heights City Schools Board of Education (BOE) objected to Globe Products, Inc.'s requested decrease, but the BOR lowered the property value in line with what Globe sought. On appeal, the BTA found the testimony presented by the BOE that was critical of Globe’s evidence lacking and adopted the value determined by the BOR. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA did not err in concluding that the Bedford elements were satisfied; and (2) because Globe presented competent and at least minimally plausible evidence to the BOR, the BOE could not invoke the auditor’s original valuation as a default. View "Huber Heights City Schools Board of Education v. Montgomery County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this case concerning the 2014 value of a KeyBank branch located in Hilliard, The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopting the appraisal presented on behalf of the Hilliard City Schools Board of Education (school board), holding that it was not legal error for the BTA to rely on this appraisal.In the proceedings below, two appraisals were presented, one of behalf of the landowner and building owner (collectively, Appellants), and the other on behalf of the school board. The board of revision adopted Appellants’ appraisal, but the BTA adopted the school board’s appraisal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, contrary to the arguments raised by Appellants on appeal, it was not legal error for the BTA to rely on the school board’s appraisal. View "Hilliard City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) remanding this cause to Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) with instructions for the BOR to dismiss the underlying valuation complaint, holding that there was no merit to Appellant’s arguments on appeal.The BTA found that where Appellant's complaint was prepared and filed by a nonlawyer, the complaint constituted the unauthorized practice of law and failed to invoke the BOR’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) nonlawyers who are not specified by Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(A) are not authorized to file on behalf of a property owner, and therefore, the complaint in this case failed to invoke the BOR’s jurisdiction; and (2) the BTA did not exceed its statutory authority by considering the board of education’s motion to dismiss, nor did the BTA violate Appellant’s right to due process by failing to hold a hearing on the jurisdictional issue. View "Greenway Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus to compel the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund to award Appellant on-duty-percentage disability benefits for injuries he alleged were sustained during the course of his employment, holding that the Fund’s board of trustees did not abuse its discretion in denying benefits.Appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus challenging the board’s decision not to award on-duty disability benefits for his injuries. The court of appeals adopted the decision of the magistrate recommending denying the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because some evidence supported the board’s decision, the court of appeals did not err in denying the requested writ. View "State ex rel. Wegman v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund" on Justia Law

In this case concerning property that was the subject of a 2011 valuation complaint, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the Board of Revision’s (BOR) denial of the property owner’s request for a hearing for tax year 2012, holding that the BOR had continuing-complaint jurisdiction under Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(D).Appellant, the owner of the property at issue, filed a 2011 valuation complaint. The BOR issued its decision on the complaint more than ninety days after it was filed, and the matter was not finally resolved until after an appeal to the BTA. The next year, Appellant sought to invoke the BOR’s continuing-complaint jurisdiction for tax year 2012 pursuant to section 5715.19(D). The BOR denied the request, and the BTA affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause to the BOR for a determination of the subject property’s tax-year-2012 value, holding that the BOR had continuing-complaint jurisdiction under the facts of this case. View "Molly Co. v. Cuyaohga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law