Chagrin River Hardwood Co. v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Revision
2017 Ohio 4122
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Chagrin River Hardwood Co. owns several Ashtabula County parcels used historically for commercial timber; logging stopped in the 1970s to allow regrowth (estimated 35–50 years).
- Parcels had CAUV (current agricultural use value) status since 1973; the Ashtabula County Auditor denied CAUV for tax year 2012 for failing to show recent cultivating activity.
- Chagrin River appealed to the Board of Revision, which upheld the Auditor’s denial after finding no recent activity to cultivate timber for commercial harvest.
- Chagrin River then filed an administrative appeal in county court; the trial court affirmed the Board of Revision on May 17, 2016.
- On appeal to the Eleventh District, Chagrin River argued the court should apply an owner‑intent ("devoted to") standard rather than a "use" standard and that it had devoted the land exclusively to agriculture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAUV qualification requires an objective showing of recent agricultural use (a "modicum of activity") or owner intent ("devoted to") | Chagrin River: Court should consider owner’s intent—land was devoted exclusively to agricultural (timber) use | Board/Auditor: Statute requires actual use/activity; intent is irrelevant; must meet R.C. 5713.30(A)(1)(a) elements | Court held statute is clear; reject intent test and apply objective "use"/modicum‑of‑activity standard; Chagrin River failed to show required activity |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667 (describing abuse of discretion concept)
- Snavely v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Rev., 78 Ohio St.3d 500 (taxpayer bears burden before board of revision)
- Bd. of Edn. of Mentor Exempted Village School Dist. v. Bd. of Revision of Lake Cty., 57 Ohio St.2d 62 (intent test rejected; statutory wording clear)
- Fife v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Revision, 120 Ohio St.3d 442 (modicum‑of‑activity standard for timber CAUV)
- Maralgate, L.L.C. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 Ohio St.3d 316 (discussing constitutional amendment and CAUV valuation method)
- Renner v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 59 Ohio St.3d 142 (describing CAUV effect versus highest and best use)