Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversing the decision of the Board of Revision (BOR) and reinstating the auditor’s tax-year-2011 valuation of the subject property at $1,550,000. Appellant filed a valuation complaint, and the BOR reduced the value of the property to $300,000. The BTA found that the record did not support the BOR’s decision to reduce the subject property’s value and reinstated the auditor’s valuation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA did not violate the rule stated in Bedford Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 875 N.E.2d 913, by reinstating the auditor’s valuation. View "Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education v. Delaware County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this real-property valuation case, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that San Diego Real Estate Investments, LLC’s (SD REI) complaint seeking to reduce the county auditor’s tax-year-2010 valuation of the subject property was jurisdictionally valid.SD REI’s complaint alleged that the value of the subject property should be reduced from $90,400 to $26,000. The Board of Revision (BOR) reduced the property’s value to $26,000 for tax year 2010. The Board of Education (BOE) appealed to the BTA. Thereafter, the BOE requested that the BTA remand the matter to the BOR with instructions to dismiss the complaint and reinstate the auditor’s valuation, asserting that SD REI’s complaint failed to invoke the BOR’s jurisdiction because the complaint was filed by an individual lacking the requisite authority. The BTA denied the request and ruled that the property’s value should be $26,000 for tax years 2010 through 2013. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause to the BTA with instructions to dismiss the complaint, holding that the complaint was jurisdictionally defective. View "Columbus City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) denying Appellant’s request to reduce the value of residential property he owned during the 2013 tax year. The subject property consisted of a .13-acre parcel improved with a single-family home. For tax year 2013, Appellant requested that the Board of Revision (BOR) reduce the fiscal officer’s valuation from $88,600 to $6,000. The BOR retained the fiscal officer’s valuation. The BTA also retained the fiscal officer’s valuation, concluding that Appellant failed to met his burden to adduce competent and probative evidence of value and that there was inadequate evidence to independently determine a value. The Supreme Court remanded for consideration of the evidence, holding that the BTA erred by failing to account for potentially material evidence of the property’s sale in 2009. View "Mann v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) and Board of Revision (BOR) to retain the county fiscal officer’s valuation of real property owned by Appellant. The subject property consisted of a single-family dwelling located on a half-acre parcel in the city of Beachwood. For tax year 2013, Appellant filed a complaint seeking to reduce the fiscal officer’s valuation from $1,429,100 to $850,000. The Supreme Court affirmed the BTA’s decision, holding (1) Appellant’s value-related arguments and procedural arguments were unavailing; and (2) Appellant failed to show that the BTA acted unreasonably or unlawfully. View "Jakobovitch v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) determining that the subject property in this case should be valued in 2013 according to its 2012 sale price of $550,000. The property was retail property that was split from a larger parcel and sold to Appellee. For tax year 2013, the auditor valued the subject property at $2,199,700. Appellee filed a valuation complaint asking for a reduction to $850,000 - the same value attributed to the undivided parcel for tax year 2012. The Board of Revision (BOR) reduced the new parcel’s value to $1,282,740. The BTA rejected the BOR’s valuation and valued the property at $550,000, finding that the 2012 sale was a recent arm’s-length transaction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA’s decision was reasonable and lawful. View "Huber Heights City Schools Board of Education v. Montgomery County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversing the tax commissioner’s determination finding that certain apartment buildings did not qualify for an exemption under Ohio Rev. Code 5709.87. Appellee, the owner of the property in question, remediated the property and improved it with apartment buildings. The tax commissioner found that the apartment buildings did not qualify for a partial tax exemption under section 5709.87 - the “brownfield exemption” - for having undergone environmental cleanup. The BTA, however, concluded that Appellee was entitled to a tax exemption for the assessed value of the apartment buildings under section 5709.87. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the tax commissioner waived his main argument and one other issue by failing to raise them first before the BTA; and (2) the tax commissioner’s remaining arguments lacked merit. View "Kinnear Road Redevelopment, L.L.C. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming in part and reversing in part a tax assessment issued by the tax commissioner based on a consumer-use-tax audit of certain purchases made by Accel, Inc. The court held that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in (1) reversing the imposition of use tax on materials Accel acquired to be used and incorporated into gift sets; (2) reversing the imposition of use tax on certain transactions by which Accel obtained employment services through one of its suppliers; (3) ruling that no portion of the assessment was time-barred under Ohio Rev. Code 5703.58(B); (4) declining to exempt the production of gift sets and employment-services transactions with a different supplier; and (5) admitting into evidence the report and testimony of the opposing parties’ expert witnesses. View "Accel, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ denial of Appellant’s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition. In his original action for writs of mandamus and prohibition, Appellant alleged, among other things, that the judge who presided over his 1981 jury trial had never pronounced judgment or sentenced him. The court of appeals granted summary judgment for Defendants and denied the requested writs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) with one possible exception, the claims Appellant was making were barred by res judicata; and (2) summary judgment was proper on the only allegation that Appellant raised in the present case that may not have already been litigated. View "State ex rel. Jackson v. Ambrose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of Appellant for a writ of mandamus. In his petition, Appellant argued that he was entitled to be released from custody under the same terms as his original parole because the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) failed to hold a hearing within a reasonable time to determine whether Appellant had violated the terms of his release. The court of appeals granted summary judgment for the APA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly ruled that Appellant’s mandamus claim was barred by res judicata because it arose “from a nucleus of facts that was the subject matter” of previous legal actions; and (2) the motion for declaratory judgment that Appellant filed in this appeal is denied. View "State ex rel. Alford v. Adult Parole Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to an indefinite term of a minimum of fifteen years to life, to be served consecutively to the sentence he was then serving on federal charges. Appellant later filed this action against the Bureau of Sentence Computation (BSC) requesting a writ of mandamus to compel BSC to calculate his term served under his state sentence as if the sentence were being served concurrently with, and not consecutively to, the federal sentence. The court of appeals dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "State ex rel. Sanford v. Bureau of Sentence Computation" on Justia Law