2018 Ohio 818
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In July 2012 John J. Gallick bought two adjacent 15-unit apartment buildings (30 tax parcels) for $120,000 total; he allocated $60,000 to each building ($4,000 per unit).
- Auditor set higher "true values" for tax years 2012 and 2013; Gallick petitioned the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) to reduce each unit's valuation.
- BOR accepted the $4,000 per-unit value for tax year 2012 but retained the Auditor's 2013 valuations; Gallick appealed the 2013 valuations to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 5717.05.
- Procedural wrinkle: eight consolidated appeals in this court; three appeals (15AP-233, 15AP-419, 15AP-837) were dismissed for untimely notices of appeal because Gallick’s post-entry motions for new trial were inappropriate (no trial occurred).
- On the remaining five appeals, the court held that Gallick met the minimal proof of a recent arm’s-length bulk sale (conveyance fee statement and deed), triggering rebuttable presumptions that the sale price was evidence of true value; the Board of Education failed to rebut those presumptions for tax year 2013.
- Court reversed the trial-court affirmances for the five appeals, remanding with instructions to certify $4,000 per parcel as the 2013 true value for the affected units.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a recent arm’s-length sale controls valuation for tax year 2013 under amended R.C. 5713.03 | Gallick: his July 2012 bulk sale (conveyance fee statement and deed) is recent and arm’s-length, so $4,000/unit is best evidence of true value | Board: market/condition changes and post-sale improvements/occupancy changes between July 2012 and Jan 1, 2013 rebut recency/arm’s-length presumptions | Held: sale evidence invoked rebuttable presumptions of recency and best evidence; Board failed to rebut (no proof market or property changed materially in the relevant period); $4,000/unit must be used for tax year 2013 |
| Whether the Board met its burden to rebut the presumption created by sale documentation | Gallick: minimal documentation suffices to trigger presumptions; burden shifts to Board to produce contrary evidence | Board: elicited testimony from Gallick to suggest market movement and improvements that undermine recency/arm’s-length nature | Held: Board’s evidence was too general or non-specific (trend over many years, unquantified occupancy increases, vague "clean up"); did not overcome presumption |
| Whether the July 2012 bulk sale was arm’s-length despite allocation method and Gallick not asking list price | Gallick: sale was voluntary, open-market, and parties acted in self-interest; allocation of bulk price was not challenged | Board: argued circumstances undermined arm’s-length character | Held: facts (seller listed property, realtor involvement, buyer bid, seller accepted) support arm’s-length sale; not arm’s-length only because buyer didn’t ask list price |
| Whether Civ.R. 59 motions tolled appeal deadlines where no trial occurred | Gallick: motions for new trial tolled appellate filing times under App.R. 4(B)(2)(b) | Opposing parties: motions were inappropriate because there was no trial, so tolling doesn't apply | Held: Civ.R. 59 applies to R.C. 5717.05 appeals only if a trial occurred; here no trial occurred, so motions were nullities and did not toll appeal deadlines; three appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Berea City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 269 (2005) (interpreting former R.C. 5713.03 to require sale price as true value when recent arm’s-length sale is proven)
- Cummins Property Servs., L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 117 Ohio St.3d 516 (2008) (sale price displaces appraisal evidence when a recent arm’s-length sale is shown)
- Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 150 Ohio St.3d 527 (2017) (amendment to R.C. 5713.03 changed "shall" to "may," preserving rebuttable presumptions and clarifying evidentiary burdens)
- Lunn v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision, 149 Ohio St.3d 137 (2016) (recent arm’s-length sale is best evidence of value when not rebutted)
- Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 141 Ohio St.3d 243 (2014) (factors to determine arm’s-length nature of sale)
- Black v. Bd. of Revision, 16 Ohio St.3d 11 (1985) (trial court in R.C. 5717.05 appeal must consider BOR evidence and additional evidence and make independent judgment)
- New Winchester Gardens v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 80 Ohio St.3d 36 (1997) (speed of market change affects how long a sale remains reliable evidence of value)