History
  • No items yet
midpage
DCWI-77, L.L.C. v. Montgomery Cty. Aud.
2012 Ohio 728
Ohio Ct. App.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • DCWI-77, LLC appealed the Montgomery County BOR's 2008 valuation of a Dayton residential property after purchasing it from HUD for 50,200.
  • Auditor previously valued the property at 87,210 for 2008; BOR kept that value after a hearing.
  • DCWI-77 alleged the true value was the prior appraised amount 73,563, arguing it did not rise during the downturn.
  • DCWI-77 relied on an arm's-length sale to support a lower value, and sought reduction from 87,210 to 73,563.
  • Trial court affirmed BOR's valuation after weighing evidence; DCWI-77 appealed to the court of common pleas.
  • Court of appeals affirms, holding the taxpayer bears the burden to prove entitlement to a reduction and that the trial court did not abuse discretion in not taking additional evidence.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the sale price creates a rebuttable presumption of true value DCWI-77 argues sale price should be true value County argues no presumption without documented arm's-length sale evidence Presumption exists only if sale is arm's-length; county need not rebut absent such showing by appellant.
Whether the trial court should have adopted appellant's valuation or held a new hearing DCWI-77 seeks adoption of 73,563 or a hearing for additional evidence Court may decide on record or admit additional evidence; no need for a de novo hearing No abuse of discretion; no need for new hearing; judgment affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

  • Cincinnati Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 325 (1997) (recognizes rebuttable presumption of sale price as true value when arm's-length)
  • Cincinnati School Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 325 (1997) (arm's-length sale may establish true value; burden-shifting if not)
  • Walters v. Knox County Bd. of Revision, 47 Ohio St.3d 23 (1989) (defines arm's-length characteristics)
  • Black v. Bd. of Revision of Cuyahoga Cty., 16 Ohio St.3d 11 (1985) (trial court may weigh evidence independently)
  • Siebenthaler Co. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 74 Ohio App.3d 103 (1991) (independent valuation review on appeal)
  • Murray & Co. Marina, Inc. v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio App.3d 166 (1997) (burden on taxpayer to prove entitlement to reduction)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: DCWI-77, L.L.C. v. Montgomery Cty. Aud.
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Feb 24, 2012
Citation: 2012 Ohio 728
Docket Number: 24649
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.