Apple Group Ltd. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
139 Ohio St. 3d 434
Ohio2014Background
- Apple Group challenged 13 Trophy Club unbuilt lots’ 2008 value; auditor’s value was $105,000 per lot.
- Apple proposed $65,000 per lot; BOR hearing retained auditor’s valuation for lack of proof of a different value.
- Apple introduced Richard Racek’s comparables showing $85,000 (2008) and $75,000 (2009–2010) values.
- BTA found Racek’s data insufficient to override auditor’s 2008 value and did not perform an independent valuation.
- Court remanded to require independent valuation for 2008; carryover to 2009 and non-consideration of 2010 were addressed by statutory rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BTA should perform an independent valuation for 2008 | Racek’s data negated auditor’s value. | BTA may adopt auditor’s valuation if evidence is insufficient for independent valuation. | BTA must perform independent valuation for 2008. |
| Whether carryover to 2009 should reflect carryover or new valuation | Carry over should be reconsidered due to new independent valuation. | Carryover follows Wolf and related cases; determine 2009 value within carryover framework. | BTA must decide for 2009 whether to carry over 2008 value or adopt new value. |
| Whether the BTA properly refused to value 2010 | Continuing-complaint jurisdiction extends to 2010, requiring valuation. | Continuing-complaint jurisdiction did not require BTA to value 2010; proper limits apply. | BTA’s decision not to address 2010 is affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolf v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 11 Ohio St.3d 205 (1984) (carryover jurisdiction; BTA not required to render separate years)
- Oberlin Manor, Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision, 69 Ohio St.3d 1 (1994) (triennial update carryover and BTA jurisdiction over subsequent years)
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (2009) (duty to undertake independent valuation when error in prior approach)
- Sapina v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 136 Ohio St.3d 188 (2013) (allocation and valuation considerations; supports independent valuation when warranted)
- Fogg-Akron Assocs., L.P. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 112 (2009) (continuing-complaint and jurisdictional limits)