Johnson v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
120 N.E.3d 823
Ohio2018Background
- William S. Johnson (pro se) owns a 154.61-acre farm in Clark County that qualifies for Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV).
- For tax year 2013 the Clark County auditor set true market value at $726,350 and CAUV at $457,250; Johnson challenged the CAUV.
- At the Board of Revision (BOR) hearing Johnson testified, presented witnesses and exhibits; the BOR denied relief and Johnson appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA).
- At the BTA hearing Johnson again testified and presented exhibits; the county cross‑examined but presented no independent valuation evidence.
- The BTA found the auditor complied with valuation-recording duties, rejected Johnson’s evidence (including under the owner‑opinion rule), and concluded Johnson failed to prove boundaries of the contested portions of the parcel.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the BTA, rejecting Johnson’s arguments about burden of proof, presumption of validity, owner‑opinion evidence, auditor compliance, and failure to prove boundaries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden at the BTA? | Johnson: BOR/auditor should be required to rebut his evidence and prove value. | County: challenger (Johnson) bears burden to prove proposed value at BTA. | Held: Challenger bears burden; county need not present evidence if challenger fails to sustain burden. |
| Did the BTA improperly presume validity of BOR decision? | Johnson: BTA deferred to BOR and thus applied a forbidden presumption of validity. | County: BTA independently evaluated and rejected Johnson’s evidence. | Held: No presumption; BTA independently analyzed and rejected plaintiff’s evidence. |
| Is Johnson’s owner opinion dispositive? | Johnson: Owner‑opinion rule makes his valuation competent and sufficient. | County: Owner testimony is competent but BTA may assign it little weight. | Held: Owner opinion is competent evidence but BTA may discount it; here BTA reasonably found it not probative. |
| Did the auditor comply with statutory/administrative duties to record valuation? | Johnson: Auditor failed to comply with R.C. and Admin.Code requirements (not shown in record). | County: Auditor’s property‑record card and spreadsheets show required valuation information and adjustments. | Held: Auditor complied; BTA’s finding that record and spreadsheets satisfied duties was reasonable. |
| Did Johnson prove boundaries of contested portions of CAUV parcel? | Johnson: He provided acreage allocations for soil usages, which should suffice. | County: Acreage is not the same as legally‑established boundaries; claimant must prove exact boundaries. | Held: Johnson failed to prove specific boundaries; BTA reasonably rejected his acreage‑only showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St.3d 399 (2006) (standard of review: BTA decision must be reasonable and lawful)
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (2009) (challenger at BTA bears burden to prove proposed value)
- Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 140 Ohio St.3d 248 (2014) (owner‑opinion rule described and limited)
- Renner v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 59 Ohio St.3d 142 (1991) (CAUV depends on exact land under review; boundaries are critical)
- Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 150 Ohio St.3d 527 (2017) (true value in money defined as open‑market sales price)
- Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 44 Ohio St.2d 13 (1975) (BTA has wide discretion to weigh credibility and evidence)