DCWI Office North, L.L.C. v. Montgomery County Auditor
959 N.E.2d 576
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- DCWI Office North, L.L.C. appeals a BOR decision that left the Montgomery County Auditor's 2008 true value of Parcel E20-019998-0161 at $852,720 for tax year 2008.
- DCWI contends the auditor breached duties under R.C. Chapter 5713 by improper appraisal methods and by failing to consider actual income and expenses.
- The BOR heard limited testimony; neither the BOE nor the auditor presented evidence, while DCWI introduced actual income/expenses and Coe’s appraisal.
- Coe’s market and income approaches valued the property at approximately $526,211 (rounded to $520,000) using a 24,140-square-foot basis and adjusted rents, after applying an income approach.
- The auditor’s own model used a 12% vacancy, 43% expense rate, and a 13.38% capitalization rate, yielding substantially different values from the actual figures.
- The BOR ultimately maintained the $852,720 valuation, the trial court affirmed, and DCWI appealed seeking a reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auditor’s duty under RC 5713 breached | DCWI argues auditor failed to properly appraise and used unsupported methods. | Auditor followed applicable rules; interior inspection not required and standard methods were permissible. | Yes; trial court erred by not finding breach and by disregarding actual income evidence. |
| Consideration of actual income in valuation | DCWI presented actual income/expenses; auditor’s preference for actual income data should be considered. | The BOR and court relied on Coe’s report and normal procedures; actual income was not properly weighed. | Yes; court abused discretion by failing to consider actual-income figures and DCWI sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. Bd. of Revision of Cuyahoga Cty, 16 Ohio St.3d 11 (1985) (appeals from board of revision assessed on record; abuse of discretion standard)
- Fogg-Akron Assoc., L.P. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 112 (2009) (burden on taxpayer; probative evidence matters on appeal)
- Murray & Co. Marina, Inc. v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio App.3d 166 (1997) (taxpayer bears burden to prove right to reduction; court weighs witnesses' credibility)
- Blatt v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 428 (2009) (appellate review of valuation involves legal conclusions on evidence)
- AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (standards for abuse of discretion in administrative appeals)