Cannata v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
147 Ohio St. 3d 129
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Residential property in Cuyahoga County (large lot, 4,173 sq ft house) was valued by the county fiscal officer at $858,600 for tax year 2009; owner sought reduction to $325,000 and submitted an appraisal valuing it at $330,000.
- At the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) the owner presented the appraiser and report; BOR’s worksheet notes the appraiser’s appearance but the audio recording of his testimony was not preserved or certified to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA).
- The BOR retained the fiscal officer’s valuation; owner appealed to the BTA and resubmitted the written appraisal report (owner’s counsel alone appeared at the BTA hearing).
- The BTA adopted the written appraisal and reduced the 2009 valuation to $330,000, noting the BOR’s failure to transmit the audio recording; it did not expressly extend the finding to later years but the majority instructs carryforward.
- County appellants (BOR and fiscal officer) and Orange City School District (BOE) appealed. County appellants argued BTA erred because the BOR record omitted the appraiser’s recorded testimony; BOE argued the BTA should not adopt an appraisal the BOR rejected and that carryforward to 2010–2011 was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Owner) | Defendant's Argument (BOR/Fiscal Officer/BOE) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county appellants can challenge BTA adoption of appraisal when BOR failed to certify audio | Appraisal report in the certified record is evidence; BTA may weigh it; county breach shouldn’t defeat owner’s right to have appraisal considered | BOR/fiscal officer: BTA erred because it could not properly evaluate the appraisal without the appraiser’s recorded testimony the BOR failed to transmit | County appellants barred from complaining — they may not benefit from their own failure to preserve/transmit the record |
| Whether BTA’s reliance on the written appraisal without the missing audio was plain error (despite BOE’s procedural inaction) | Owner: written appraisal itself is probative; BTA may determine value based on record before it | BOE: adoption was unfair because BTA lacked appraiser’s testimony and thus could not evaluate adjustments and credibility | BTA’s adoption was plain error given potentially material missing evidence; vacated and remanded for BTA to develop reliable, probative record |
| Whether BTA could limit its jurisdiction to 2009 and not carry forward valuation to 2010–2011 | Owner: carryforward should apply so any determination for 2009 carries into 2010–2011 within the same triennium | BOE: subsequent complaints filed for 2010 and 2011 (though dismissed as jurisdictionally improper) cut off carryforward | Carryforward under R.C. 5715.19(D) continues despite jurisdictionally defective/dismissed complaints; 2009 valuation carries to 2010 and 2011 |
| Proper remedy and scope of BTA authority on remand | Owner: wants appraisal considered; BTA should reevaluate or take additional evidence | Appellants: variously sought reversal or affirmation | Court vacated BTA decision and remanded, instructing BTA to develop the record per R.C. 5717.01 and issue an order supported by reliable and probative evidence; valuation for 2009 to be applied to 2010–2011 |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Natl. Can Co. v. Tracy, 72 Ohio St.3d 150 (reliable and probative evidence required to sustain findings)
- A. Schulman, Inc. v. Levin, 116 Ohio St.3d 105 (BTA findings must rest on reliable and probative evidence)
- MacDonald v. Shaker Hts. Bd. of Income Tax Rev., 144 Ohio St.3d 105 (BTA reviews factual issues de novo)
- Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 144 Ohio St.3d 549 (waiver of challenge to valuation when appellee fails to object)
- AERC Saw Mill Village, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 127 Ohio St.3d 44 (limits to carryforward during reappraisal/update years)
- Oberlin Manor, Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision, 69 Ohio St.3d 1 (carryforward is the rule within a triennium)
- Apple Group Ltd. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 434 (carryforward explained and applied)
- Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 74 Ohio St.3d 639 (a valid new complaint in a new triennium terminates carryforward)
- Fogg-Akron Assocs., L.P. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 112 (fresh complaint terminates carryforward only if procedurally valid)