Moskowitz v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
150 Ohio St. 3d 69
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Taxpayer Marvin Moskowitz challenged the fiscal officer’s 2012 mass-appraisal valuation of his two-family residence in Cleveland Heights (originally $148,800).
- At the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) hearing, Moskowitz presented photos showing fire damage (from 2000) and testified repairs were incomplete; he sought reductions ultimately to $25,000.
- Moskowitz submitted an unverified table of nearby sales (2008–2013) without adjustments; he requested judicial notice of the fiscal officer’s website data.
- The BOR conducted a property view, found the house in ‘‘very poor condition,’’ revised square footage/condition, and reduced the value to $60,000.
- On appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) declined further reduction, finding Moskowitz’s comparable-sales compilation unadjusted and thus not probative of a value below $60,000.
- Moskowitz appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing burden-shifting, flaws in the mass-appraisal, and that his $25,000 opinion should control; the court affirmed the BTA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moskowitz) | Defendant's Argument (County/BOR/BTA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears burden to prove a reduction in assessed value? | Burden shifted to the county after Moskowitz presented evidence of defects in mass appraisal. | Burden remains on taxpayer to prove right to reduction; county need not rebut absent taxpayer proof. | Burden stays with taxpayer; Moskowitz failed to meet it. |
| Whether BOR/BTA’s $60,000 valuation must be reduced to $25,000 | Moskowitz’s opinion and comparables support $25,000. | Moskowitz’s comparables were unadjusted/unverified and not probative of a lower value. | BTA reasonably affirmed BOR’s $60,000; taxpayer failed to prove lower value. |
| Whether taxpayer may challenge original mass-appraisal after BOR reduced value | Original mass-appraisal flaws show county valuation unreliable; should be overturned. | Once BOR lowered the value, taxpayer is not aggrieved by the original mass-appraisal and cannot pursue it. | Moskowitz cannot challenge the replaced original valuation; only the BOR-adopted $60,000 may be contested. |
| Admissibility/probative weight of owner testimony and submitted comparables | Owner testimony and sale table are admissible and sufficient to prove market value. | Owner testimony may be hearsay or not probative without adjustments/authentication; submitted table lacked probative adjustments. | BTA permissibly found the evidence not probative of a $25,000 value. |
Key Cases Cited
- W. Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 170 Ohio St. 340 (1960) (taxpayer bears burden to prove right to deduction/reduction)
- Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 44 Ohio St.3d 202 (1989) (BTA may defer to BOR where taxpayer fails to prove greater reduction)
- Amsdell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 69 Ohio St.3d 572 (1994) (taxpayer must produce competent, probative evidence of correct value)
- Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 44 Ohio St.2d 13 (1975) (fair market value for tax purposes is a factual issue primarily for taxing authorities; appellate relief limited to unreasonable or unlawful decisions)
- EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 1 (2005) (appellant must demonstrate the advocated value to meet burden at BTA)