Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
147 Ohio St. 3d 38
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Property: two-story office building (one half of lower floor a bank) in Franklin County; tax year 2010 valuation at issue.
- Auditor valued the property at $2,205,000; owner (Union Savings Bank) filed complaint and presented an appraisal valuing it at $1,000,000 for 2010.
- At the Board of Revision (BOR) hearing, a certified appraiser testified and reconciled sales-comparison and income approaches to $1,000,000; BOR adopted that reduced value and carried it forward to 2011.
- Dublin City Schools Board of Education (BOE) appealed the BOR decision to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), arguing the appraisal was not probative and urging reversion to the auditor’s valuation; BOE also contested the 2011 carryforward (the BTA vacated the carryforward for 2011, not at issue here).
- The BTA affirmed the BOR’s 2010 valuation; BOE appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court challenging reliance on the owner’s appraisal and arguing the BTA should have reverted to the auditor’s valuation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BTA may adopt the BOR’s reduced valuation based on owner’s appraisal when BOE appeals | BOE: Appraisal flawed and not probative; BTA should revert to auditor’s original valuation | Bank/BOR/BTA: BOR adopted a competent appraisal; that valuation governs unless BOE adduces evidence to the contrary | Affirmed BOR/BTA: Under Bedford rule, BOR’s valuation based on owner’s competent evidence becomes the default; BOE must present evidence to rebut it |
| Which party bears burden of production at BTA when BOR reduces value based on owner’s appraisal | BOE: BTA must independently require probative evidence before accepting lowered valuation | BOE implicitly argues auditor’s valuation can serve as default absent owner probative evidence | Held: When BOR adopts owner’s appraisal, burden shifts to BOE to produce evidence contesting BOR’s value |
| Whether BTA must provide detailed analysis for accepting BOR’s appraisal | BOE: BTA needed more explicit analysis to show appraisal probative | BTA/Bank: BOR and BTA factfinding and appraiser expertise suffice; no super-review by court | Held: No heightened explanation required; appellate court will not substitute its judgment for BTA/BOR factfinding |
| Applicability of carryforward to 2011 reappraisal year | BOE: BOR erred in carrying 2010 reduced value into 2011 (reappraisal year) | Bank/BTA: BOR carried value forward; BTA considered and vacated carryforward for 2011 | BTA vacated the carryforward for 2011; that action was not contested in this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 115 Ohio St.3d 449 (2007) (establishes rule that when owner’s competent evidence causes BOR to reduce value, that value becomes the new default and burden shifts to board of education on appeal)
- Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 140 Ohio St.3d 248 (2014) (applies and explains Bedford rule in similar context)
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (2009) (discusses auditor-appraised valuation as default in appeals by county auditor)
- Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 76 Ohio St.3d 13 (1996) (distinguishes sales-price-based value issues from appraisal-evidence disputes for purposes of de novo review)
- RNG Properties, Ltd. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 140 Ohio St.3d 455 (2014) (court declines to act as "super BTA"; affirms deference to BTA and BOR factfinding)