2018 Ohio 822
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- 6800 Avery Road, LLC bought a one-acre undeveloped residential lot at sheriff's sale for $250,000 and challenged the county auditor's 2010 valuation of $491,800 before the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR).
- Appellant sought a reduction to $101,004.65 for tax year 2010, relying on a per-square-foot comparison of the auditor's assessed values for six neighboring parcels and owner testimony from principal Edward Polina.
- Appellant did not present a formal appraisal, recent arms-length sales data for comparables, or attempt to qualify Polina as an expert; Polina admitted the purchase was a sheriff's sale and the property was not marketed.
- BOR rejected appellant's tax-comparable evidence (citing WJJK) and found no competent, probative evidence to support a reduction; BOR also treated the sheriff's sale price as nonprobative under R.C. 5713.04.
- The common pleas court reviewed the BOR record, affirmed the auditor's valuation for 2010–2012, and appellant appealed to this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant met its burden to reduce auditor's valuation | Appellant: auditor's assessed per-sq-ft comparables show overvaluation and support a lower value | BOR/school district: tax-assessed comparables and sheriff-sale price are not competent, probative evidence without sales data or appraisal | Held: Appellant failed to meet burden; BOR and trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Admissibility/weight of tax-assessed comparables | Comparables' assessed values reasonably indicate market value differences | Comparable assessed values alone are inadequate absent evidence how auditor assessed them or recent arms-length sales | Held: Court rejected comparables as sufficient evidence (citing WJJK/Piepho) |
| Applicability of owner-opinion rule (Polina's testimony) | Polina, as owner, may testify to property value | Polina's testimony was vague, inconsistent, tied to forced-sale purchase, and the owner was not offered as an expert | Held: Owner-opinion rule did not supply competent, probative value evidence |
| Use of sheriff's sale price as evidence of true value | Appellant relied on purchase price as indicative of value | Statute and precedent bar forced-sale prices as criteria of true market value | Held: Sheriff-sale price is not probative of true value and cannot justify reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- WJJK Investments, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 76 Ohio St.3d 29 (1996) (holding mere comparison of assessed values for different parcels, without more, does not show unequal assessment methodology or prove market value)
- Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 193 (2013) (taxpayer bears burden to prove entitlement to change auditor's valuation; need competent, probative evidence)
- Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 140 Ohio St.3d 248 (2014) (explains owner-opinion rule and limits on owners testifying about comparables)
- Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 141 Ohio St.3d 243 (2014) (forced-sale prices, including sheriff's-sale purchases, are not probative of true market value)
- Simmons v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 81 Ohio St.3d 47 (1998) (taxpayer's failure to sustain burden of persuasion justifies retaining auditor's valuation)