Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 5823
Ohio2017Background
- Owners Matthew and Jerry Chess challenged 2011 valuations for 18 condominium parcels in Franklin County; BOE filed a countercomplaint to retain auditor's values.
- Owners then filed a separate 2012 complaint challenging the same parcels; the BOR dismissed the 2012 complaint as a prohibited second filing during the 2011–2013 triennial period.
- At the BOR hearing, Chest relied primarily on five 2012 sales of similar units (prices $35,100–$44,000); BOR also used a gross-rent-multiplier (GRM) analysis and adopted a reduced total value of $882,000 (17% reduction from auditor’s $1,066,000).
- BOE appealed to the BTA; the BTA upheld the BOR’s reduced valuations, stating there was no record evidence to counter the BOR and that the invalid 2012 filing did not cut off the 2011 complaint.
- The appellate record lacked the BOR’s deliberation audio and contained no BTA hearing evidence appearing in the certified record; BOE argued the BTA failed to independently weigh the evidence and improperly treated BOR’s decision as presumptively valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BTA must independently weigh evidence and not presume BOR’s valuation valid | BOE: BTA must perform de novo review and independently weigh record evidence; BOR’s reductions lacked sufficient owner-offered proof | BTA/BOR: BOR’s valuation stands; no evidence in record sufficiently rebuts BOR’s decision | Court: BTA erred by relying on presumption; must independently weigh evidence; vacated and remanded |
| Whether BOR may rely on its own GRM/auditor-generated evidence when ordering reductions | BOE: Owners bore burden to present evidence; BOR improperly relied on its/ auditor’s GRM instead of owner proof | BOR: BOR may elicit and rely on consultant/auditor evidence in assessing value | Court: BOR may consult additional evidence; BTA must consider all evidence and determine weight on remand |
| Whether the filing of an invalid 2012 complaint cut off continuation of the 2011 complaint for 2012–2013 values | BOE: Carryforward from 2011 to 2012–2013 improper because owners filed a new 2012 complaint | Owners/BOR: 2012 complaint was jurisdictionally invalid/dismissed and thus does not cut off continuation | Court: Filing of invalid 2012 complaint did not cut off continuation; carryforward proper under Cannata |
| Whether the BTA must ensure a full record when BOR deliberations are missing | BOE: Absence of BOR deliberation record prejudices BOE and requires remediation | BOR/BTA: (implicit) decision based on certified record and BOR findings | Court: BTA must take steps to resolve case on a full record on remand to avoid prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 147 Ohio St.3d 409 (2016) (BTA must independently weigh evidence and not presume BOR’s valuation)
- Cannata v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 147 Ohio St.3d 129 (2016) (jurisdictionally invalid second filing does not cut off continuation of earlier complaint)
- Vandalia-Butler City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 Ohio St.3d 291 (2011) (BTA’s de novo review obligation described)
- Hilliard City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 128 Ohio St.3d 565 (2011) (same principle on BTA review)
- Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 76 Ohio St.3d 13 (1996) (earlier statement that BTA must not treat BOR decision as presumptively valid)
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (2009) (BOR/appraiser evidence may be tested at BTA; parties can subpoena county consultants)
- R.R.Z. Assocs. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 38 Ohio St.3d 198 (1988) (BOR is not a fully neutral tribunal; it participates in county’s valuation process)