Columbus City School District Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision
134 Ohio St. 3d 529
Ohio2012Background
- Columbus City School District Board of Education appeals the BOR/BTA decision adopting the August 2007 sale price of $179,000 as true value for tax year 2007 for Susanne Novak’s property.
- The valuation complaint was filed March 26, 2008 by Kurt Novak, the property owner’s spouse, acting on her behalf; parties contested jurisdiction and validity of the filing.
- Susanne Novak purchased the property in August 2007 for $179,000 and later assigned it to Parkland Investment Group in May 2008 for no consideration.
- At the BOR hearing (August 21, 2008), Kurt Novak testified the sale was a short sale due to default; he offered comparables and asserted market overvaluation of area properties.
- The BOR (December 5, 2008) adopted the sale price; the BTA (2011) upheld that decision, noting the signature matched Kurt Novak and that the spouses were inferred to be married.
- This court ultimately held that the BOR validly invoked jurisdiction by spousal filing under R.C. 5715.19(A)(1) and that the sale could be treated as arm’s-length if the lender acted as a typically motivated seller.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a spouse may file a valuation complaint invoking BOR jurisdiction | Novak argues HB 694 allows a spouse to file for the owner. | School board argues this violates regulation of the practice of law (per Sharon Village). | BOR jurisdiction validly invoked by spouse filing |
| Whether a non-attorney spouse filing on behalf of the owner constitutes unauthorized practice of law | No bar under HB 694 to spousal filing; filing is permissible. | Non-attorney filing could constitute unauthorized practice of law. | Filing allowed; not an improper practice of law for the purpose of jurisdiction |
| Whether the sale price reflects true value given a short sale in distress | Sale was arm’s-length and reflects market value despite distress. | Distress/duress and lender’s involvement in a short sale undermine arm’s-length characterization. | Record supports BTA finding that lender acted as typically motivated seller; sale price valid value |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 479 (1997) (non-attorney filing can be unauthorized practice of law under certain statutes)
- Dayton Supply & Tool Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 111 Ohio St.3d 367 (2006) (nonattorney corporate officer may file; later unauthorized practice does not retroactively divest jurisdiction)
- Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 127 Ohio St.3d 63 (2010) (reaffirmed limits on how to treat 'arm’s-length' and voluntary sale factors in value)
- Strongsville Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 112 Ohio St.3d 309 (2007) (distress and duress can negate arm’s-length status)
- HealthSouth Corp. v. Testa, 132 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (BTA findings reviewed for reasonableness; deference to factual determinations)
- Gahanna- Jefferson Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino, 93 Ohio St.3d 231 (2001) (claims that BTA decisions must rest on proper legal conclusions)
- Strongsville Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 112 Ohio St.3d 309 (2007) (duress analysis in short-sale context)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision v. Fodor, 15 Ohio St.2d 52 (1968) (valuation determination is primarily a function of tax authorities, reviewed for reasonableness/unlawfulness)