Mann v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
152 Ohio St. 3d 197
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Property: single-family home on ~0.13-acre lot in Cleveland Heights; fiscal officer valuation for tax year 2013 was $88,600.
- Mann sought reduction to $6,000 at the Board of Revision (BOR); BOR retained the fiscal officer’s value.
- Record includes quitclaim deeds: November 2009 transfer from MDA Fund VIII, L.L.C. to Gevaldig Enterprises, L.L.C. for $6,000; March 2010 transfer from Gevaldig to Mann for $0.
- Victor (Mann’s associate) testified the house was uninhabited since 2009, suffered water damage in 2011 (repaired ~late 2013), and comparable nearby sales were in the $6,000–$11,000 range.
- The BTA rejected Mann’s challenge, explaining the March 2010 $0 transfer was remote and between related parties and finding insufficient competent, probative evidence to set a new value; the BTA did not address the November 2009 $6,000 sale in its decision.
- Mann appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing the BTA erred by failing to consider the potentially dispositive November 2009 sale price.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BTA adequately considered relevant sale evidence (Nov. 2009 $6,000) | Mann: the Nov. 2009 sale is competent, probative evidence and the best evidence of value under R.C. 5713.03 | County: challenged weight/recency and highlighted mortgages and related-party transfers to undermine low-sale evidence | Court: BTA erred by failing to account for the Nov. 2009 sale; decision vacated and remanded for the BTA to explicitly address that sale |
| Whether the March 2010 $0 transfer could be relied on as value evidence | Mann: relied more heavily on Nov. 2009 $6,000 sale than the $0 transfer | County: $0 transfer is remote and between related parties, so unreliable | Court: BTA permissibly discounted the March 2010 transfer but could not ignore the earlier Nov. 2009 sale |
| Whether Victor’s testimony about condition/water damage sufficed to reduce value | Mann: testimony and comparables supported lower valuation | County: testimony lacked quantification of diminution and mortgages undercut low-value claim | Court: BTA reasonably found testimony alone insufficient, but must still consider the sale evidence on remand |
| Whether BTA engaged in sufficient discussion of the record to permit appellate review | Mann: BTA failed to discuss material sale evidence | County: maintained BTA’s findings were supported | Held: BTA failed to engage sufficiently; its finding that only the March 2010 transfer was evidenced is contradicted by the record and must be set aside |
Key Cases Cited
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (2009) (taxpayer bears burden to prove proposed value)
- EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 1 (2005) (competent and probative evidence required to establish value)
- Moskowitz v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 150 Ohio St.3d 69 (2017) (collecting cases on taxpayer’s burden of proof)
- Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 150 Ohio St.3d 527 (2017) (recent arm’s-length sale is best evidence of value under R.C. 5713.03)
- Buckeye Terminals, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, Ohio St.3d (2017) (recent sale evidence weighs heavily in valuation analysis)
- Lutheran Social Servs. of Cent. Ohio Village Hous., Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 150 Ohio St.3d 125 (2017) (BTA must engage in sufficient discussion of evidence to permit review)
- Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 27 (2009) (BTA findings must be supported by the record)