LTC Properties, Inc. v. Licking County Board of Revision
133 Ohio St. 3d 111
| Ohio | 2012Background
- LTC Properties, Inc. owns Chestnut House Assisted Living in Newark, contesting tax-year 2007 valuation by the auditor, BOR, and BTA.
- Auditor valued building at $92.50/ft using nursing home cost schedule with 110% replacement-cost-new and 25% obsolescence, yielding $1,653,130 for the building after adjustments.
- Total true value set at $1,975,000; land value $307,400; building value $1,667,600 pre-adjustments.
- LTC presented McVeigh’s testimony advocating $1,380,000 facility value via income-capitalization, arguing nursing-home costs were inappropriate for an assisted-living facility.
- BOR retained the auditor’s valuation; LTC appealed to the BTA; discovery disputes and a late continuance request arose; LTC failed to timely disclose witnesses and exhibits.
- BTA affirmed the county’s valuation and denied the continuance; LTC’s challenge proceeded to appellate review with the issue of starting-point cost schedules central to the dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BTA abused its discretion in denying LTC’s continuance | LTC asserts abuse of discretion due to procedural rule violations and need for evidence. | BTA acted within discretion given LTC’s discovery and disclosure violations and failure to show good cause. | No abuse of discretion; continuance denied. |
| Whether using nursing-home/private-hospital cost schedules as a starting point for cost valuation was permissible | LTC contends this starting point was inappropriate for an assisted-living facility. | Cost schedules were a reasonable starting point; adjustments can account for differences. | Not an abuse; starting point affirmed. |
| Whether LTC failed to prove the valuation has a market basis and thus the BTA correctly affirmed the county’s valuation | LTC argued the value should be based on apartment-cost schedules and market data. | BTA correctly found LTC failed to demonstrate market basis for a lower value. | BTA properly affirmed the county’s valuation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coats v. Limbach, 47 Ohio St.3d 114 (1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuances; good-faith need)
- Strongsville Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 53 Ohio St.3d 254 (1990) (continuance diligence factors)
- Dayton-Montgomery Cty. Port Auth. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 113 Ohio St.3d 281 (2007) (cost-approach as upper limit to replacement cost; relevance to value)
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (2009) (county not required to justify all valuation calculations; burden shifts)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision v. Fodor, 15 Ohio St.2d 52 (1968) (valuation of true value as a matter of fact; defer to BTA findings)
- Natl. Church Residence v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 73 Ohio St.3d 397 (1995) (BTA credibility and weight determinations afforded deference)
- Thomas Steel Strip Corp. v. Limbach, 61 Ohio St.3d 340 (1991) (real property vs. personal property; cost schedules context)