Johnson v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Revision
2016 Ohio 7518
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- William S. Johnson owns a commercial farm in Clark County; dispute concerns the 2014 taxable value determined under Ohio’s Current Agricultural Use Value (CAUV) system.
- Johnson filed a complaint to the county auditor/Board of Revision (BOR) challenging classifications of about 9.5 acres and sought a lower CAUV-based valuation; BOR declined to change the 2014 valuation.
- Johnson appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA); at the BOR hearing Johnson was the only sworn witness, and two county employees (Simpson and Gray) were present but not sworn; Johnson relied on his recounting of their alleged findings.
- At the BTA hearing Johnson again testified but did not call Simpson or Gray as witnesses; he argued he had been prevented from presenting expert testimony at the BOR and asked the BTA to remand.
- The BTA affirmed the BOR’s decision; the court of appeals affirmed, finding Johnson failed to prove the county valuation unreasonable or unlawful and that he waived the opportunity to present the experts at the BTA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOR/BTA improperly refused to admit expert testimony (Simpson/Gray) | Johnson: BOR discouraged/prevented expert testimony; BTA should remand or admit the experts | County: BOR did not bar testimony; Johnson could present experts at BTA but declined; BTA properly exercised discretion | Court: No reversible error — Johnson waived by not offering experts at BTA and BTA did not abuse discretion |
| Whether BOR/BTA failed to comply with prior remand (2010 CAUV issue) | Johnson: BOR did not fully comply with this court’s remand concerning 2010 valuations | County: BOR adjusted values and issued partial refund; remand didn’t require a new hearing | Court: Issue not properly before this appeal; BOR acted and Johnson didn’t appeal earlier determination |
| Whether time limits at BOR/BTA denied due process | Johnson: Time constraints prevented full presentation of evidence/witnesses | County: Hearings allowed adequate opportunity; Johnson presented his claims | Court: No due-process violation shown; no prejudice demonstrated |
| Whether CAUV classifications/acreages were unsupported (drainage, woodland threshold, waste classifications, boundary issues) | Johnson: Misclassification and incorrect acreages led to overstated CAUV; relied on USDA/FSA maps and alleged findings by county employees | County: Appraisal and record support CAUV; burden on Johnson to produce competent probative evidence (surveyor/expert) | Court: Johnson failed to rebut county valuation or provide required corroboration; BTA’s decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwartz v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 143 Ohio St.3d 496 (recognizes appellant’s burden to prove proposed valuation)
- FirstCal Indus. 2 Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 125 Ohio St.3d 485 (county appraised value has prima-facie probative force)
- Colonial Village Ltd. v. Washington County Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (auditor’s valuation is default preferred value absent better evidence)
- Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 157 (BTA has discretion to weigh evidence and witness credibility)
- Gatson v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision, 133 Ohio St.3d 18 (standard of review for BTA’s admission of additional evidence: abuse of discretion)
- Valigore v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 105 Ohio St.3d 302 (owner competent to testify on value but factfinder not required to accept owner’s valuation)