Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this real-property-valution case, Owner sought to reverse the twenty percent increase in the value of his residential property that the auditor ordered for tax year 2007 as part of the sexennial reappraisal in that county. Owner did not attend the hearing before the board of revision (BOR). On appeal to the board of tax appeals (BTA), the BTA excluded Owner's testimony and two of his exhibits. It then held that Owner had not sustained his burden to show a value different from that found by the BOR. Owner appealed, arguing that he was not properly notified of the BOR hearing, that all the evidence he presented at the BTA hearing should have been considered by the BTA, and that he was entitled to a reduced valuation for tax year 2007. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA reasonably and lawfully upheld the county's valuation of Owner's property. View "Gaston v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

This matter arose out of a controversy over a phrase in a trust. The language at issue established the calculation of the price of trust property offered for sale to certain trust beneficiaries. One of the trust beneficiaries filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking judicial interpretation of the disputed provision. The trial court concluded that the disputed phrase was unambiguous and that the option price was the fair market value as determined by the appraisal. The court of appeals reversed after reviewing the trust document de novo, finding that the option language was susceptible to more than one interpretation and that the option price was the federal and/or Ohio qualified-use value. At issue on appeal was what standard of review an appellate court should employ in reviewing legal issues in a declaratory-judgment action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the de novo standard of review is the proper standard for appellate review of purely legal issues that must be resolved after the trial court has decided that a complaint for declaratory judgment presents a justiciable question. View "Arnott v. Arnott" on Justia Law

In this appeal, a property owner challenged an increase to the 2006 valuation of its property that was ordered by the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) at the instigation of the Bedford Board of Education. The BTA reversed the decision of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR), which had retained the auditor's valuation of $3,713,500. The BTA valued the property by using the allocated portion of the March 2006 sale price, which increased the valuation to $4,835,000. The owner appealed, contending that the allocated sale price was not reflective of market value. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the BTA erred by ignoring and failing to weigh the significance of testimony regarding the seller's tax motivations in allocating the sale price to the subject property; and (2) because it is the duty of the BTA to weigh the evidence and determine the facts concerning valuation, the case was remanded for proper consideration of the effect of that testimony. View "Bedford Bd. of Educ. v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In this action the Cincinnati City School District Board of Education asked the Supreme Court to rule on the validity of a deed restriction it placed on school property that it offered for sale at a public auction. At issue was whether the deed restriction contravened public policy by preventing an unused school building from being used by a public charter school. The trial court concluded that the deed restriction was void as against public policy, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because this case involved a contract between a private party and a political subdivision, there was a compelling reason to apply the principle of the public policy exception to parties' rights to make contracts; and (2) therefore, the inclusion of a deed restriction preventing the use of property for school purposes in the contract for sale of an unused school building was unenforceable as against public policy. View "Cincinnati City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Conners" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Hamilton Township, a limited-home-rule township, was authorized under Ohio law to impose its system of impact fees upon applicants for zoning certificates for new construction or redevelopment within its unincorporated areas. Appellants, several development companies, brought this action against Appellees, the Township and its trustees, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages, alleging that the impact fees were contrary to Ohio law and were unconstitutional. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Township, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the impact fees charged by the Township in this case constituted taxes; and (2) since those taxes were not authorized by general law, the Township was unauthorized to impose them pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 504.04(A)(1). View "Drees Co. v. Hamilton Twp." on Justia Law

Robert Clifton owned property contiguous to property owned by J&M Precision Machining. The Village of Blanchester annexed J&M's parcel and rezoned the entire parcel for general industrial use. Clifton filed a complaint alleging that the rezoning of J&M's property resulted in a regulatory taking of his property without just compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Village. The court of appeals reversed and remanded in part after finding that the trial court had failed to inquire as to whether the rezoning resulted in a partial taking. On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Village, finding that Clifton had no standing to bring a taking claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was an insufficient nexus between the rezoning of J&M's property and the alleged diminution in value of Clifton's adjacent property to indicate that Clifton was a proper party to bring a regulatory-taking claim; and (2) furthermore, because Clifton's property was outside the Village limits, the Village had no authority to appropriate his property for an alleged regulatory taking, and therefore, Clifton had no redressable claim against the Village for a regulatory taking. View "Clifton v. Blanchester" on Justia Law

Ohio Edison Company owned a transmission-line easement running over property owned by Kurt Wimmer and the Wimmer Family Trust (the Wimmers). When the company sought to remove the trees in the easement on the Wimmers' property, the family objected. The court of common pleas found in favor of Ohio Edison, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated that judgment on the authority of Corrigan v. Illum. Co., which held that the Public Utilities Commission, not a court, was required to decide whether tree removal was reasonable. The Wimmers then took their complaint to the Commission, which ruled in Ohio Edison's favor and permitted it to remove the trees. The Supreme Court affirmed where the Wimmers did not show any error in the Commission's order. View "Wimmer v. Pub. Util. Comm." on Justia Law

Amber Williams and Frederick Ormsby, who were not married, lived together in a house Amber received through her divorce settlement. Frederick eventually paid the remaining mortgage balance, and Amber gave him title to the property by executing a quitclaim deed. As a result of a later separation, Amber and Frederick signed a document in March 2005 to sell the house and allocate the proceeds. The couple subsequently tried to reconcile and, in June 2005, they signed a second document, purportedly making themselves equal partners in the house and providing for property disposition in the event that their relationship ended. After their relationship ended, the parties filed suit against each other. The trial court determined that the March 2005 agreement was supported by consideration but that the June 2005 agreement was not and held that title to the property was vested in Frederick exclusively. The federal court of appeals reversed, concluding that moving into home with another and resuming a relationship can constitute consideration sufficient to support a contract. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that merely moving into a home with another while engaging in a romantic relationship is not consideration for the formation of a contract. View "Williams v. Ormsby" on Justia Law

Ohio Edison owned an easement over which an electric transmission line ran. Thomas and Derrell Wilkes owned a portion of the property subject to the easement and built an above-ground swimming pool and storage shed in the area of the easement. When it discovered the structures, Ohio Edison filed a complaint in the court of common pleas to enforce the easement, asking the court to order the Wilkeses to remove their structures. The Wilkeses filed their own complaint a few months later with the public utilities commission, asking the commission to order the company to move its transmission line. The commission dismissed the Wilkeses' complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Wilkeses did not demonstrate that the commission erred in dismissing their complaint for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wilkes v. Ohio Edison Co." on Justia Law

A property owner, Sheldon Road Associates, filed a valuation complaint in December 2008 that challenged the auditor's June 2008 correction of a clerical error relating to the 2007 tax year. The county Board of Revision (BOR) issued a decision that treated the complaint as pertaining to the tax year 2008. On appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) decided that, because Sheldon's complaint was untimely as to the 2007 tax year, the BOR lacked jurisdiction. The BTA remanded with the instruction that the BOR dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the BTA, holding that the BOR did have jurisdiction under the particular facts of this case. Remanded. View "Sheldon Rd. Assocs., LLC v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law