2017 Ohio 5823
Ohio2017Background
- Owners Matthew and Jerry Chess filed complaints challenging 2011 valuations for 18 condominium parcels; BOE counterclaimed to retain auditor values.
- Owners also filed a 2012 complaint challenging 2012 values, which the BOR dismissed as a prohibited second filing during the 2011 triennial period.
- At the BOR hearing, Matthew Chess relied primarily on five 2012 sales of similar units (prices $35,100–$44,000); BOR’s deliberations are not in the certified record.
- BOR used a gross-rent-multiplier (GRM) analysis (rent $700, multiplier 70) to set a value of $49,000 per unit (total $882,000), reducing the auditor’s $1,066,000 valuation by 17% for tax year 2011.
- BOE appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), which upheld the BOR’s reductions and also held that the invalid 2012 filing did not cut off continuation of the 2011 complaint for tax years 2012 and 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (BOE) | Defendant's Argument (Chess/BOR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BTA must independently weigh evidence and may not presume BOR valuation | BTA must perform de novo review and state evidence considered; BOR reductions lacked adequate evidentiary basis | BOR’s determination stands unless record rebuts it; BOR relied on GRM and additional evidence | BTA erred by failing to independently weigh the evidence; vacated and remanded for BTA to weigh the record and state its reasoning |
| Whether reductions based on BOR/ auditor-generated analyses are improper absent owner’s evidence | Auditor/BOR-created evidence cannot sustain reduction when owner failed to meet burden; reinstate auditor values | BOR may consult staff/appraisers and consider evidence beyond owner’s submissions | BOR may consult additional evidence; on remand BTA must consider all evidence and assign weight rather than categorically disregard BOR/auditor analyses |
| Whether the 2012 complaint cut off continuation of the 2011 complaint to tax years 2012–2013 | Filing a new complaint for 2012 terminated continuation of 2011 complaint | 2012 filing was procedurally invalid and thus did not cut off continuation | Filing of a jurisdictionally invalid 2012 complaint did not cut off continuation of the 2011 complaint; carryforward of 2011 valuations to 2012–2013 was proper |
| Whether BTA should remand given absent BOR hearing record | BOE argued absence of BOR deliberation record undermines review | BOR decisions can be supported by hearing notes and BOR’s analyses | Court directed BTA to ensure a full record on remand and avoid undue prejudice given missing BOR deliberation audio/record |
Key Cases Cited
- Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 66 N.E.3d 722 (Ohio 2016) (BTA must independently weigh evidence rather than presume BOR correctness)
- Cannata v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 62 N.E.3d 144 (Ohio 2016) (jurisdictionally invalid later filing does not cut off continuation of earlier complaint)
- Vandalia-Butler City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 958 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 2011) (BTA’s de novo review obligations)
- Hilliard City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 949 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2011) (same principle on independent review)
- Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 665 N.E.2d 1098 (Ohio 1996) (BTA review standards regarding BOR decisions)
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 915 N.E.2d 1196 (Ohio 2009) (BOR/auditor consultants may be called upon to explain valuations at BTA)