2018 Ohio 2046
Ohio2018Background
- Subject property: two parcels in Franklin County (3.160 acres unimproved; 24.710 acres with 9,600 sq ft industrial warehouse). Auditor valued combined property at $1,850,000 for tax year 2011.
- BOE offered a quitclaim deed (signed/notarized Sept. 2002 but stamped in auditor's office Mar. 2009) and a conveyance-fee statement filed Mar. 2009 showing a $2,313,489 sale price; BOE argued sale price established value.
- UTSI (owner) presented appraiser Kelly Fried, who opined the improved parcel value at $1,470,000 as of Jan 1, 2011 and testified the March 2009 transfer was between related entities and included nonrealty items (based on an unnamed owner’s statements).
- BOR adopted Fried’s valuation (rejected using the 2009 sale as too remote) and set total value at $1,602,700; BOE appealed to the BTA.
- BTA found the conveyance-fee filing established a presumptive recent arm’s-length sale, excluded the appraiser’s hearsay about related-party status, concluded UTSI failed to rebut the presumption, adopted the sale price ($2,313,490) for tax years 2011–2013; Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | BOE's Argument | UTSI's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel from prior BOR finding prevented UTSI from contesting arm’s-length nature | Prior BOR (tax-year-2009) found sale arm’s-length; BOE says UTSI is collaterally estopped | UTSI contends it may contest sale | Court: Issue not preserved by BOE (no cross-appeal); cannot review. |
| Who bore burden at BTA on whether sale price should be used | BOE relied on deed and conveyance-fee statement to meet initial light burden to show qualifying sale | UTSI argued burden shifted because it prevailed at BOR | Court: Burden to negate sale price remained on UTSI (opponent of sale-price criterion). |
| Whether the 2009 filing date or 2002 deed date controls recency of sale | BOE: sale date is date conveyance-fee statement filed (Mar 2009); therefore sale proximate to Jan 1, 2011 | UTSI: sale effectively occurred in Sept 2002 (deed executed); also argued changed market conditions made 2009 sale remote | Court: Under HIN rule, sale date for valuation is conveyance-fee filing date (Mar 2009); UTSI failed to show changed market conditions sufficient to rebut recency presumption. |
| Admissibility of appraiser’s testimony that sale was between related parties (hearsay) | BOE: objected to Fried’s reliance on an unnamed owner’s statements; sought exclusion | UTSI: appraisers must rely on hearsay; appraisal content may negate arm’s-length presumption (citing Buckeye Hospitality) | Court: BTA reasonably excluded Fried’s statements as hearsay because they rest on an unnamed non-testifying source; exclusion was within BTA discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- HIN, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 923 N.E.2d 1144 (Ohio 2010) (established rule that conveyance-fee statement filing date is sale date for R.C. 5713.03 purposes)
- Utt v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision, 79 N.E.3d 536 (Ohio 2016) (sale documentation creates light initial burden to invoke sale-price presumption)
- Cummins Property Servs., L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 885 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio 2008) (standard for rebutting presumption: show sale not recent or not at arm’s length)
- Buckeye Hospitality (Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision), 58 N.E.3d 1126 (Ohio 2016) (an appraiser’s report and testimony may be used to rebut a sale-price presumption, but report’s probative weight is for the factfinder)
- Akron City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 9 N.E.3d 1004 (Ohio 2014) (noting sales more than 24 months before lien date may be remote in reappraisal years)