Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Team Rentals, LLC, the owner of a two-story office building in Summit County, sought a reduction of the value assigned to its property for tax year 2012. The Summit County Board of Revision (BOR) reduced the value based explicitly on a bank appraisal presented by Team Rentals. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed the BOR’s valuation and reinstated the higher valuation originally assessed by the county auditor, concluding that the BOR’s determination to reduce the value record was unsupported by competent and probative evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the BTA, holding (1) the BTA misapprehended the competency of the evidence and ignored case law barring the use of the auditor’s original valuation as “default value” under the circumstances presented in this case; and (2) a legal error in the BOR’s determination prevented affirmance of the BOR’s determination. Remanded for an independent determination of value based upon all the evidence in the record. View "Copley-Fairlawn City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

After the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer valued residential real estate owned by Landowner for tax year 2009, Landowner filed a complaint seeking a reduction. At a hearing before the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) Landowner presented an appraisal report along with the testimony of the appraiser. The BOR rejected the appraisal and retained the valuation determined by the fiscal officer. Landowner appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). When the BOR certified the record of the proceedings to the BTA, it failed to include the audio recording of the oral testimony before the BOR. The BTA adopted the appraiser’s valuation of the property after reviewing the record, incomplete as it was. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding that the BTA committed plain error by adopting the appraisal valuation given the absence of potentially important evidence that ought to have been part of the record. Remanded for further proceedings with a view to performing an independent valuation of the property. View "Cannata v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the value for tax year 2012 of four residential properties used as rental properties. The Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) ordered reductions based on unspecified area sale prices and rents. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) retained the BOR’s reduced valuations of the property. The Columbus City Schools Board of Education (BOE) appealed, asking that the Supreme Court reverse the BTA’s decision and reinstate the original valuations found by the county auditor. The Supreme Court affirmed based on the authority of Columbus City Schools Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision, in which the Court confronted similar claims in an appeal by the BOE and rejected the claims because the BOE had not raised and preserved them before the BTA. View "Oak View Props., LLC v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Buckeye Hospitality, Inc, the owner of a Comfort Inn hotel property located in Franklin County, filed a complaint seeking a reduction of the value assigned to its property. The Columbus City Schools Board of Education filed a countercomplaint seeking retention of the auditor’s valuation. The Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) adopted the lower value set forth by Buckeye’s appraiser, with an adjustment. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) found that the valuation analysis of Buckeye’s appraiser was supported by the evidence and adopted the BOR’s approach. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the BTA, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the decision of the BOR and the BTA. View "Columbus City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Veolia Water North American Operating Services, Inc., the private owner and operator of a waste-water-treatment plant that serves both communities and certain manufacturers, sought exemption of real-estate improvements and all the personal property at the plant. The basis for its exemption claim was the treatment of industrial waste water generated by its manufacturing customers. The tax commissioner granted the exempt-facility certificate for a percentage of the personal property that reflected the amount of inflow that was industrial waste water but did not include the amount of residential waste water generated by the communities. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA’s conclusion that certain property was not entitled to the partial exemption was both reasonable and lawful; and (2) the tax commissioner did not violate its duty to give some of Veolia’s supplemental documentation to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. View "Veolia Water N. Am. Operating Servs., Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Ohio Board of Nursing commenced a professional disciplinary action against Beverly Clayton, a staff nurse in the intensive care unit (ICU) of Mercy Hospital Western Hills, for alleged violations of Ohio Rev. Code 4723. In a number of separate motions, Clayton requested subpoenas for the personal appearance of numerous people and subpoenas duces tecum seeking to obtain several different collections of documents. The Board filed a motion to limit subpoena request, arguing that the number of requests was successive. The hearing examiner denied the Board’s motion in large part but granted the request with respect to certain ICU patient records. After a hearing, the hearing examiner concluded that discipline was warranted. The trial court affirmed the Board’s decision. The court of appeals affirmed, implying that the hearing examiner’s decision to limit the subpoena may have been erroneous but that Clayton failed to establish prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a hearing examiner for the Board of Nursing has the discretion to limit or quash subpoenas requested during disciplinary proceedings; and (2) the hearing examiner’s decision to limit Clayton’s subpoena duces tecum in this case was not an abuse of discretion. View "Clayton v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing" on Justia Law

503 South Front Street, LP, a for-profit corporation, owned 30,000 square feet of commercial space and leased the property for a term of thirty years to ShadoArt Productions, a nonprofit organization. ShadoArt filed an application for exemption under Ohio Rev. Code 5709.12 and 5709.121, which statutes articulate the substantive requirements for public-use and charitable-use exemptions. The tax commissioner denied the request. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed. On appeal, ShadoArt argued that because Ohio Rev. Code 5715.27, which permits certain long-term lessees to file applications for exemption, authorizes it to file an application for exemption, it was also entitled to receive an exemption under sections 5709.12 and 5709.121. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the BTA, holding (1) amended section 5715.27 did not alter the substantive requirements for any specific exemption under chapter 5709; and (2) ShadoArt’s claim for exemption did not satisfy the requirements set forth in sections 5709.12 and 5709.121 because the property does not belong to a charitable institution. View "ShadoArt Prods., Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

Rural Health Collaborative of Southern Ohio, Inc. owned a facility in Adams County that was operated under lease by Dialysis Clinic, Inc. Rural Health filed a charitable-use exemption application for the property. The tax commissioner denied the exemption. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) concluded that Rural Health qualified as a charitable institution under Ohio Rev. Code 5709.121(A)(2) and granted the exemption. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s grant of exemption and remanded, holding (1) the BTA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Rural Health qualifies as a charitable institution; but (2) BTA erred in granting the exemption because the BTA did not fully analyze the claim under Ohio Rev. Code 5709.121(A)(1). Remanded. View "Rural Health Collaborative of S. Ohio, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

In 2010, the Washington County Auditor determined a value of $9,091,000 for a Lowe’s Home Center store in Marietta. Lowe’s filed a complaint before the Washington County Board of Revision (BOR) seeking a reduction to $3,600,000. The BOR retained the auditor’s valuation. On appeal, Lowe’s and the County presented competing appraisals. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopted the County’s appraisal, concluding that the County’s comparables were more appropriate. Lowe’s appealed, arguing that the BTA misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Meijer Stores Ltd. Partnership v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision by adopting the type of appraisal in this case that the BTA rejected in Rite Aid of Ohio, Inc. v. Washington County Bd. of Revision. The Supreme Court explained the significance of Meijer Stores in its decision in the Rite Aid appeal, also issued today. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision in the instant case, holding that reading the BTA decision in light of that explanation identified a significant omission in the BTA’s analysis. Remanded. View "Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Washington County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

The 2010, the Washington County Auditor determined a value of $3,319,000 for multiple parcels that together constituted a Rite Aid drugstore and its parking lot. Rite Aid of Ohio, Inc. filed a complaint before the Washington County Board of Revision (BOR) seeking a reduction. The BOR retained the auditor’s valuation. On appeal, Rite Aid and the County presented competing appraisals. The County’s appraisal was more than twice that of Rite Aid’s. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopted Rite Aid’s appraisal as the value of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Meijer Stores Ltd. Partnership v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision did not require the use of the kind of comparables that the County’s appraiser relied upon because Meijer Stores was not applicable in this case. View "Rite Aid of Ohio, Inc. v. Washington County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law