Maralgate, L.L.C. v. Greene County Board of Revision
130 Ohio St. 3d 316
| Ohio | 2011Background
- CAUV applies to land devoted exclusively to agricultural use under R.C. 5713.30(A)(1).
- Turner Family Partnership acquired a 749-acre farm in 2005, including a 70.959-acre parcel later transferred to Maralgate, L.L.C. in July 2006.
- The parcel was part of the larger farm and the entire farm reportedly enjoyed CAUV status until the transfer.
- Auditor denied CAUV for 2007 on the transferred parcel, reviewing only the parcel itself rather than the whole farm.
- BTA reversed the BOR, granting CAUV to the parcel, and Greene County appealed seeking isolation of the parcel from the farm for CAUV purposes.
- Court affirms the BTA, holding the parcel remained under common ownership with the Turner farm and qualified for CAUV under contiguity and common ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parcel qualifies for CAUV under common ownership | Maralgate argues common ownership with the Turner farm justifies CAUV | County argues parcels must be owned by the same entity to be common ownership | Yes; parcel is under common ownership with the Turner farm and qualifies |
| Whether noncommercial timber can support CAUV even if not grown as a crop | Timber noncommercial use qualifies if contiguous to common-owned agricultural land | Timber must be grown for a commercial crop to qualify | Yes; noncommercial timber qualifies when contiguous to common-owned land otherwise devoted to agricultural use |
| Whether administrative rule tying ownership to the same owner forecloses consideration | Rule 5703-25-30(B)(25) does not foreclose consideration of common ownership | Rule requires same-owner parcels to be treated as separate unless common ownership proven | No; rule does not foreclose consideration of common ownership for CAUV |
| Whether the entire parcel, not just tillable portions, may receive CAUV when part is woodland | Whole parcel can receive CAUV due to overall agricultural use | Only portions actively cultivated could qualify | Yes; entire parcel may receive CAUV given contiguity and lack of substantial nonagricultural use |
Key Cases Cited
- Dircksen v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Revision, 109 Ohio St.3d 470 (2006) (amendments and CAUV interpretations relevant to contiguity/common ownership)
- Renner v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 59 Ohio St.3d 142 (1991) (recoupment requires proof of precise acreage use when nonagricultural use exists)
- Furbay v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 61 Ohio St.3d 64 (1991) (recoupment burden for nonagricultural use areas; precise acreage needed)
- Rocky Fork Hunt & Country Club v. Testa, 100 Ohio App.3d 570 (1995) (timber/noncommercial context pre-dates 1993 amendments)
- Castillo v. Jackson, 149 Ill.2d 165 (1992) (administrative guidance on ownership when evaluating CAUV-like issues)