Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that reduced the taxable value of a piece of property for tax year 2015, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider a portion of this appeal and that the remainder of the challenge had merit.The BTA reduced the taxable value of the property from $66,000 to $48,000 and then imposed an additional ten percent reduction to arrive at a value of $43,210. The Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) and the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer (collectively, the county) appealed. The Supreme Court held (1) because the county did not challenge the initial reduction to $48,000 in its notice of appeal, the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the county’s challenge to that reduction advanced in the county’s briefing; and (2) the record provided no basis for the BTA to apply an additional ten percent reduction to the property value. View "Yanega v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s complaint for a writ of mandamus against Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Judge Lou A. D’Apolito, holding that the court of appeals correctly concluded that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.In his complaint for a writ of mandamus Appellant sought to vacate a default judgment and a foreclosure judgment foreclosing on his property. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Appellant before the entry of the default judgment and the foreclosure decree, Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by a direct appeal of those orders. View "State ex rel. Washington v. D'Apolito" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered two state-law questions from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by holding that the failure to identify a person who has initialed, signed, and acknowledged a mortgage agreement by name in the body of the agreement does not render the agreement unenforceable as a matter of law against that signatory.The panel specifically asked whether a mortgage is invalid and unenforceable against a signatory who is not identified by name in the body of the mortgage agreement. The Supreme Court answered in the negative, holding that, as a matter of general contract interpretation, it is possible for a person who is not identified in the body of the mortgage, but who has signed and initiated the mortgage, to be a mortgagor of her interest. View "Bank of New York Mellon v. Rhiel" on Justia Law

At issue was what type of reference within a chain of title is sufficient to preserve an earlier-created interest under Ohio’s Marketable Title Act, which generally allows a landowner who has an unbroken chain of title to land for a forty-year period to transfer title free of interests that existed prior to the beginning of the chain of title unless sufficient reference is made to interests within that chain of title.Landowners sought to extinguish an oil-and-gas royalty interest created in 1915. Landowners argued that a reference in a deed in their chain of title to the royalty interest, as well as the original holder of the interest, was not sufficient to preserve the interest because it did not include either the volume and page number of the record in which the interest was recorded or the date on which the interest was recorded. The court of appeals concluded that Landowners’ title remained subject to the royalty interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a reference that includes the type of interest created and to whom the interest was granted is sufficiently specific to preserve the interest in the record title. View "Blackstone v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this defamation case to the trial court for further proceedings, holding that the cap in Ohio Rev. Code 2315.18 that applies to tort actions seeking noneconomic loss as a result of an alleged injury or loss to a person or property also applies to defamation.Plaintiff filed this civil complaint against Defendant, alleging several claims. At trial, the only claim submitted to the jury was for defamation. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded her $800,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. Defendant appealed, arguing that the amount awarded in damages was in excess of the applicable caps on damages set forth in section 2315.18(B)(2). The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the cap on damages for noneconomic loss set forth in section 2315.18(B)(2) unambiguously caps the noneconomic damages that can be recovered as a result of defamation. View "Wayt v. DHSC, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) rejecting the method of valuation espoused by an appraiser for the property owner, HCP EMOH, LLC, to derive an opinion of value for an assisted-living facility and instead adopting the valuation reached by an appraiser for the Washington County Board of Revision (BOR) and Washington County Auditor (collectively, the county), holding that the BTA erred in adopting the county’s appraisal.The property at issue consisted of two parcels constituting almost seven acres of land and was improved with a one-story assisted-living facility. At issue was how an appraiser should separate the family’s business value from the value of the realty. HCP’s appraiser relied on apartment comparable to reach a value for the property. The county, however, relied on data from the assisted-living-facility market. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding (1) case law permits but does not require consideration of apartment comparable; but (2) the county’s appraiser was not scrupulous in selecting data that led him to value the business rather than the realty. View "HCP EMOH, LLC v. Washington County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) dismissing Appellants’ appeal from a decision of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) because it found that Appellants failed to timely file a notice of appeal with the BOR in accordance with Ohio Rev. Code 5717.01, holding that the BTA properly dismissed the appeal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) to perfect an appeal of a county board of revision’s decision to the BTA, a notice of appeal must be timely filed with both the BTA and the BOR; (2) Appellants did not timely file a notice of appeal with the BOR as required by section 5717.01; and (3) the BTA was not required to convene an evidentiary hearing, and therefore, Appellants’ claim of a constitutional due-process violation was unfounded. View "Ross v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Mars Urban Solutions, LLC and Michael Majeski seeking to compel the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer and Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) to comply with a judgment of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that reduced the 2010 value of a property that Majeski owned and later conveyed to Mars Urban, holding that a writ was not warranted in this case.The Court reached its conclusion after noting that 2012 was the first year of a new sexennium, and any dispute that Mars Urban and Majeski had pertaining to the property value for any year beyond 2011 should have been filed as a new and separate claim for each year. The Court also held that the fiscal officer and the BOR submitted sufficient evidence to establish that both entities complied with the BTA’s judgment for tax years 2010 and 2011. Therefore, the Court denied the writ. View "State ex rel. Mars Urban Solutions, LLC v. Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the tax commissioner’s denial of Willoughby Hills Development and Distribution, Inc.’s (WHDD) request for a commercial-activity-tax (CAT) refund, holding that WHDD fell short of the requirements necessary for the gross-receipts exclusion to apply.Subject to exclusions, the CAT is levied on each entity with taxable gross receipts above a certain threshold for the privilege of doing business in Ohio. At issue was whether WHDD could meet the requirements of the gross-receipts exclusion that applies when a person or entity acts as an agent for another. The tax commissioner concluded that no agency relationship existed and denied the refund claim. The BTA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that WHDD did not meet the CAT statute’s definition of “agent.” View "Willoughby Hills Development & Distribution, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

In this property tax appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) concluding that the Marion County Board of Revision (BOR) and the River Valley Local School District Board of Education (school board) were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel from seeking to enforce a recorded covenant that purported to prohibit Kohl’s Illinois, Inc., the property owner in this case, from contesting the Marion County auditor’s valuations of the property, holding that the BTA properly applied collateral estoppel.After the Supreme Court remanded this case in Kohl’s I, the BTA remanded the matter to the BOR to determine value. No appeal was taken from this decision. On remand at the BOR, Kohl’s introduced an appraisal report and testimony in support of a reduced value. When the BOR retained the auditor’s valuation, Kohl’s appealed. The BTA held that it had already decided not to enforce the covenant at issue in its earlier decision and that the BOR and school board were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel from seeking enforcement of the covenant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA did make a determination as to the covenant issue. View "Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. Marion County Board of Revision" on Justia Law