Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

David Emerson owned two adjoining parcels of real property in Erie County. The Erie County auditor’s aggregate valuation of the two parcels for tax year 2011 was $328,270. Emerson challenged the valuations, arguing that his 2009 purchase of the parcels established lower true values because it was a recent arm’s-length transaction. The Erie County Board of Revision (BOR) retained the auditor’s valuation. On appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed the BOR’s decision and valued the property at $180,000 according to the sale price. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Emerson demonstrated a recent arm’s-length sale; and (2) the county cannot rebut the sale price with an appraisal. View "Emerson v. Erie County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The real property in this case was a manufacturing and distribution facility owned and operated by Johnson Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc. The Hamilton County auditor valued the property at $13,571,760 for tax year 2011. Coca-Cola filed a complaint seeking a reduction in value. The Hamilton County Board of Revision (BOR) rejected Coca-Cola’s complaint and retained the auditor’s valuation. On appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) increased the value to $14,000,000 based on a new appraisal submitted by the auditor. The Supreme Court affirmed the BTA’s decision as modified to correct a clerical error, holding that the BTA’s decision was reasonable and lawful. View "Johnston Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hamilton County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In 2016, the Powell City Council approved an ordinance rezoning certain property from planned commercial and residence districts to downtown residence district. Thereafter, Brian Ebersole sought a writ of mandamus to compel Powell City Council to place the new ordinance on the May 2017 ballot. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Ebersole was not entitled to a writ of mandamus because, under the city charter, the City had no clear legal duty to place the matter on the ballot. Therefore, Ebersole’s proper course of action was to challenge the validity of the ordinance by way of a suit for declaratory judgment, a form of relief that this Court had no original jurisdiction to grant. View "State ex rel. Ebersole v. City Council of Powell" on Justia Law

Property owners challenged the Lorain County auditor’s valuation of their single-family residence for tax year 2012, alleging that their 2011 purchase of the property was a recent arm’s-length sale that established a lower true value. The Lorain County Board of Revision (BOR) retained the auditor’s valuation, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the property owners’ complaint. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed and valued the property according to the sale price, concluding that the transaction was recent, arm’s-length, and constituted the best indication of the property’s value. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the BTA and reinstated the BOR’s valuation, holding that the BTA’s decision was unreasonable and unlawful because it mischaracterized and disregarded evidence showing that the sale was a forced sale. View "Utt v. Lorain County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

At issue in this real property valuation case was the proper valuation for tax year 2012 of an unused office warehouse property. The county auditor assigned a value of $1,388,700 to the property. The property owner (Appellant) sought a sale price valuation of $50,000 and an appraisal valuation of either $450,000 or $588,000. The board of revision (BOR) rejected the sale price on the grounds had not been consummated. The transfer allegedly occurred after the hearing held by the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). The BTA rejected the sale price because the evidence of transfer was presented after the close of its hearing. The BTA then valued the property at $588,000. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding that the BTA erred by (1) declining to consider Appellant’s post hearing evidence of the consummation of the sale for a price of $50,000; and (2) concluding that the BTA’s initial decision was based on a clerical error that could be corrected without weighing the conflicting evidence of the value of the property. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Emerson Network Power Energy Systems, North America, Inc. v. Lorain County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

At issue in this real property valuation case was the proper valuation for tax year 2009 of sixteen unsold units of a twenty-unit condominium development. The auditor assigned a value of $5,986,400 to the units. Before the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR), the property owner presented an appraiser’s valuation of $2,900,000. The BOR adopted the appraisal valuation. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed the decision of the BOR and reinstated the auditor’s valuation. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding (1) the BTA reasonably rejected the appraiser’s opinion of value; but (2) the BTA should have performed an independent valuation of the property. Remanded with instructions that the BTA perform and independent valuation of the property. View "Columbus City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Kenney Company, LLC, contested the auditor’s valuation of fourteen office condominium parcels for tax year 2009. The auditor valued the units at approximately $2,512,000. Before the Delaware County Board of Revision (BOR), The Kenney Company presented an appraisal that assigned an aggregate value of $1,430,000 to the unites. The BOR adopted the appraisal valuation. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed the BOR’s decision and reinstated the auditor’s valuation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA acted reasonably by rejecting The Kenney Company’s appraisal and reinstating the auditor’s valuation. View "Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education v. Delaware County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

Betty Lunn, the owner of a single-family residence, challenged the Lorain County auditor’s valuation of the property for tax year 2012. Lunn appealed, arguing that her 2011 purchase of the home was a recent arm’s-length sale that established a lower true value. The Board of Revision (BOR) retained the auditor’s valuation, concluding that the auditor had provided insufficient evidence of the sale. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed and valued the property according to the sale price. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully when it found that Lunn satisfied her initial burden to show a recent arm’s-length sale under former Ohio Rev. Code 4713.03; but (2) Lunn’s purchase was a “forced sale” under section 5713.04, and therefore, Lunn failed to overcome the presumption that the sale of the property post-foreclosure was not indicative of the property’s true value. View "Lunn v. Lorain County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

Dynamic Industries, Inc. (DI) owned real property on which stood a building that DI claimed was unsalvageable. After an application was filed to have the building designated a historic landmark, DI filed an application seeking a permit to demolish the building. The City of Cincinnati did not process DI’s application because the historic-designation application was still pending. DI filed in the court of appeals an original action in mandamus seeking a peremptory writ compelling the City to immediately issue its requested permit and related relief. The City subsequently passed an ordinance approving the historic-designation application. When the building became a historic landmark, DI was precluded from obtaining a demolition permit unless it first obtained a certificate of appropriateness, for which DI did not apply. The court of appeals dismissed DI’s complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over DI’s claims in declaratory and injunctive relief and for money damages; and (2) DI failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before asserting its takings and general mandamus claims, and therefore, those claims were unripe and unavailing. View "State ex rel. Dynamic Industries, Inc. v. Cincinnati" on Justia Law

This case arose after the City of Cleveland granted a production company a permit to close a portion of a street in downtown Cleveland for sixteen consecutive days so that the company could film scenes for a movie. The street’s closure cut off access to one of two entrances to a parking lot owned by Cuyahoga Lakefront Land, LLC (“Lakefront”) during the permit period. Lakefront brought this original action in the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which found that Cleveland had taken Lakefront’s property without just compensation and issued a writ of mandamus ordering Cleveland to commence appropriation proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no writ should issue because Lakefront failed to show that the temporary loss of access to one of the two entrances to the parking lot was a compensable taking of its property. View "State ex rel. Cuyahoga Lakefront, L.L.C. v. Cleveland" on Justia Law