Akron City School District Board of Education v. Summit County Board of Revision
139 Ohio St. 3d 92
| Ohio | 2014Background
- In August 2005, property (an Akron Arby’s) sold for $1,407,000.
- For tax year 2008 (a reappraisal year), Summit County determined true value as $902,320.
- Akron City School District filed a valuation complaint seeking the $1,407,000 sale price as value.
- Board of Revision (BOR) kept the lower reappraised value; Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed in favor of the sale price.
- Barkoffs appealed, arguing the 29-month-old sale was too remote to be presumed recent in a six-year reappraisal cycle.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held that a sale more than 24 months before the lien date should not be presumed recent when a six-year reappraisal determined a different value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 29-month-old sale is presumed recent | Barkoffs: recency presumption applies to sales within a reasonable time of lien date. | Summit County: presumption should be limited; reappraisal procedure supersedes stale sales. | Sale not presumed recent; remand for evidence-based valuation. |
| Scope of recency in a six-year reappraisal cycle | Sale price should govern if arm’s-length and recent, regardless of reappraisal date. | Reappraisal duty requires current valuation; old sale should not control. | Recency presumption limited; burden shifts to proponent to show market unchanged. |
| BTA’s application of recency presumption given six-year reappraisal | BTA correctly applied presumption to adopt sale price. | BTA erred by applying presumption to a sale >24 months before lien date. | BTA decision unlawful; remand for reconsideration consistent with 24-month rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1997) (presumption that sale price reflects true value when recent and arm's-length)
- Zell v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 330 (Ohio 1997) (recency consideration for sales near lien date; discusses limits of presumption)
- New Winchester Gardens, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 80 Ohio St.3d 36 (Ohio 1997) (no bright-line rule; varies by case)
- Dublin-Sawmill Properties v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 67 Ohio St.3d 575 (Ohio 1993) (assesses which sales are too remote; emphasizes multiple sales relevance)
- HK New Plan Exchange Property Owner II, L.L.C. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 122 Ohio St.3d 438 (Ohio 2009) (limits on reliance on older sales; recency considerations)
- North Royalton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 129 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 2011) (ground lease sale timing and sale-date for true value analysis)
- Hin, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 481 (Ohio 2010) (date of conveyance-fee statement used as sale date for true value)
- Cummins Property Servs., L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 117 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2008) (recency and arm’s-length elements basics; presumption explained)
- AERC Saw Mill Village, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 127 Ohio St.3d 44 (Ohio 2010) (harmonization of mass appraisal duties with sale-price evidence)