2022 Ohio 355
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Columbus City Schools (BOE) challenged Franklin County auditor valuations for two downtown apartment properties (Aston — 59 units; Abigail — 69 units; both with 100% vertical-improvement tax abatements) for tax year 2017.
- Auditor values: Aston $8,450,000 (land $775,400; improvements $7,674,600); Abigail $6,825,000 (land $651,900; improvements $6,173,100).
- BOE presented MAI appraiser Thomas Sprout, who testified and submitted appraisal reports valuing each property substantially higher in total and allocating larger land values (Sprout valued land as if vacant and gave totals: Aston $11,800,000; Abigail $8,165,000).
- The Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) left one value unchanged and increased the other; appeals went to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), which adopted Sprout’s total values but rejected his land/improvement allocations and instead used the auditor’s original land-to-improvement proportions.
- The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed the BTA’s allocation decision and remanded, holding the BTA unreasonably adopted the auditor’s allocation without performing the independent valuation required when the appellant’s evidence negates the auditor’s valuation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BTA properly rejected the BOE appraiser’s land valuation because it valued improved land "as vacant" | Sprout’s land valuation was competent and prepared for tax purposes; it negated the auditor’s land value and should be credited | BTA/appellees argued Sprout’s land value did not reflect the property as improved on the lien date and thus should be given no weight | Court: BTA gave Sprout’s land value no weight without adequate basis; that refusal was unreasonable because the appraisal was competent and negated the auditor’s valuation |
| Whether BTA may adopt the auditor’s allocation of land vs. improvements after rejecting the appraiser’s allocation | BOE: once appraiser negates auditor’s total/parts, BTA must independently allocate values rather than revert to auditor proportions | BTA relied on FirstCal reasoning and auditor proportions as corroborating absent better evidence | Court: Where evidence negates auditor’s valuation and no contrary evidence supports auditor, BTA had a legal duty to perform its own valuation rather than adopt auditor allocation; adopting auditor proportions was unlawful |
| Whether the Copley‑Fairlawn (and related) line of cases require the BTA to perform an independent valuation here | BOE: Copley‑Fairlawn exception applies — appraisal negated auditor and provided an independent basis, triggering BTA’s duty to value | Appellees: BTA argued it weighed evidence and correctly discounted the land allocations | Court: Copley‑Fairlawn applies; because Sprout’s reports were competent, prepared for tax purposes, and negated the auditor’s values, BTA must independently determine allocation on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Copley-Fairlawn City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 147 Ohio St.3d 503 (2016) (when owner’s evidence negates auditor, BTA must independently value property)
- FirstCal Indus. 2 Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 125 Ohio St.3d 485 (2010) (auditor’s initial allocations carry some prima facie probative force absent better evidence)
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (2009) (discusses weight and presumptive force of auditor valuations)
- Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 193 (2013) (BTA must weigh evidence independently; discussed in Copley-Fairlawn)
- Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 115 Ohio St.3d 449 (2007) (owner’s BOR-supported reduction can shift burden on appeal)
- Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 150 Ohio St.3d 527 (2017) (true value in money = fair market sale price standard)
- Polaris Amphitheater Concerts, Inc. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 118 Ohio St.3d 330 (2008) (BTA should value land consistent with Ohio Adm. Code valuation directives)
- EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 1 (2005) (BTA has wide discretion to weigh evidence of value)