Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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

In this real-property tax case, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopting a certain property’s sale price without giving full consideration to the appraisal offered by the property owner, holding that the BTA did not act reasonably and lawfully.At issue was the tax-year 2014 value of a single-tenant building occupied by J.P. Morgan Chase under a net lease. Although, under the amended version of Ohio Rev. Code 5713.03 appraisal evidence is admissible and competent alongside sale-price in determining a property’s value, the BTA adopted the property’s sale price without giving full consideration to appraisal evidence. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the BTA, holding that the BTA did not properly perform its fact-finding duties in this case. View "GC Net Lease @(3)(Westerville) Investors, LLC v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this real-property tax case, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopting a certain property’s sale price without considering the appraisal offered by the property owner, holding that the BTA did not properly perform its fact-finding duties.The property at issue was a single-tenant office building occupied by J.P. Morgan Chase under a net lease. On appeal, the BTA noted that under the applicable version of Ohio Rev. Code 5713.03, the fee-simple estate must be valued as if unencumbered. Nonetheless, the BTA adhered to caselaw applying an earlier version of the statute that emphasized the use of the sale price to determine value. The BTA then adopted the November 2013 sale price as the property value for tax year 2013. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that appraisal evidence is relevant and admissible, that no threshold showing was required before a tax tribunal must give full consideration to appraisal evidence, and that remand was required for further proceedings. View "Westerville City School District Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Ohio Supreme Court centered on whether whether oil-and-gas land professionals, who help obtain oil-and-gas leases for oil-and-gas-development companies, must be licensed real-estate brokers when they engage in the activities described in R.C. 4735.01(A) with respect to oil-and-gas leases. Specifically, the Court addressed address whether R.C. 4735.21 precluded a person not a licensed real-estate broker from bringing a cause of action to recover compensation allegedly owed for negotiating oil-and-gas leases. The Court concluded the plain language of R.C. 4735.01 did not exclude oil-and-gas land professionals or oil-and-gas leases from the relevant definitions set forth in the statute; appellants Thomas Dundics and his company, IBIS Land Group, Ltd., engaged in activities that required a real-estate-broker’s license and were precluded from bringing a cause of action to recover compensation for those activities. View "Dundics v. Eric Petroleum Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopting the property value stated in an appraisal report presented by the Licking Heights Local Schools Board of Education (BOE), holding that the property owner’s jurisdictional challenges to the decision below were unavailing.On appeal, the property owner argued (1) its withdrawal of the complaint it originally filed for tax year 2011 deprived the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) of jurisdiction to proceed on the BOE’s countercomplaint; and (2) the BOR’s jurisdiction was limited to consideration of the land value because the property owner’s original complaint contested the land value and not the value of improvements. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the voluntary dismissal of a complaint filed under Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(A) does not retroactively invalidate a complaint filed under section 5715.19(B); and (2) the administrative tribunals’ jurisdiction under the BOE’s complaint was not limited to determining land value. View "Licking Heights Local Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) was how best to determine the true value of a low income housing property that is both rent restricted and rent subsidized.Appellant, the property owner in this case, argued that rents as derived from rent-restricted comparable should be used in determining the true value of such a property but that the property’s rent subsidies should be excluded from consideration. The board of education, however, argued that the property’s actual rents, which include tenant-paid rent and rent subsidies, should be used. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding that the BTA failed to weigh and analyze a potentially material piece of evidence presented by Appellant, and given the BTA’s failure to discharge its duty as the finder of fact, the case must be remanded with instruction that the BTA “explicitly account” for the evidence at issue, along with other evidence. View "Columbus City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s complaint for writs of prohibition and procedendo against Darke County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jonathan P. Hein, holding that Appellant was not entitled to either writ.In his complaint, Appellant asked for a writ of procedendo directing Judge Hein to vacate an order confirming the sale of property at a foreclosure sale. The court of appeals dismissed the procedendo claim as seeking the wrong form of relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that procedendo was inappropriate because Appellant sought to undo a court order rather than to compel the judge to issue a ruling. As to the request for a writ of prohibition, the Supreme Court held that even if Appellant had sought to undo the confirmation order through a writ of prohibition, that request would be moot because the court of appeals had already vacated the confirmation order. Lastly, Appellant had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal. View "State ex rel. Sponaugle v. Hein" on Justia Law