Musto v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 456
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Cynthia Musto owned a 10.01-acre residential property with specialized outbuildings; the Lorain County auditor valued it at $547,260 for tax year 2012; Musto sought reduction to ~$405,000.
- The Lorain County Board of Revision (BOR) — via a two-member panel including Jack Kilroy (appointed auditor representative) — retained the auditor’s valuation after a BOR hearing where Musto presented a 2009 financing appraisal and owner testimony.
- Musto appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). She submitted a new certified appraisal (Feb. 2014 by Elizabeth Caldwell) but the appraiser did not testify at the scheduled BTA hearing; Musto requested a continuance or telephonic participation which the BTA denied.
- Kilroy, who had served on the BOR panel, represented the auditor and BOR at the BTA hearing; Musto objected and later moved to disqualify him. The BTA denied the disqualification motion.
- The BTA declined to rely on either appraisal: it discounted Caldwell’s report because the appraiser was unavailable to testify and Malloy’s 2009 financing appraisal because it predated the tax-lien date and lacked explanatory testimony. The BTA affirmed the BOR’s valuation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BTA abused discretion by denying continuance when Musto’s appraiser missed the hearing | Unger factors required granting a continuance; refusal was unreasonable | BTA followed its rules, parties had ~6 months’ notice, no good-cause shown at hearing; telephonic participation not allowed on this track | Denial was within BTA discretion; no abuse found |
| Whether BTA had to disqualify Kilroy for serving on BOR and then representing BOR/auditor | Kilroy’s dual role violated professional rules, R.C. 102.03, and deprived Musto of due process | Kilroy’s roles produced no demonstrated prejudice; disqualification remedies inappropriate on direct appeal; ethics violations addressed administratively | Denial of disqualification not an abuse of discretion; no reversible prejudice shown |
| Whether BTA improperly retained auditor’s valuation despite appellant evidence negating it (duty to determine value from record) | Musto submitted competent appraisals and evidence that negated the auditor’s value, triggering the narrow exception (Dublin) | Appraisal reports lacked author testimony/explanation; financing appraisal predated tax-lien date; appellant bore burden to prove value | BTA acted reasonably in assigning minimal weight to the evidence; auditor’s value need not be displaced |
| Whether absence of affirmative market evidence from appellees (Bedford rule) barred reliance on auditor’s valuation | Without appellee market evidence, BTA cannot rely on auditor’s value by default | Bedford rule applies only when BOR reduced auditor’s value; here BOR retained auditor’s valuation so default adoption is permissible | Bedford rule inapplicable; BTA permissibly adopted auditor’s valuation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (factors for assessing continuance requests)
- EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 1 (standard for reviewing BTA continuance decisions and abuse-of-discretion)
- Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 193 (narrow exception when appellant evidence clearly negates auditor’s valuation)
- Plain Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 Ohio St.3d 230 (appraisal report may be considered absent appraiser testimony if record shows indicia of reliability)
- Copley-Fairlawn City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 147 Ohio St.3d 503 (BTA justified in retaining auditor’s valuation where appellant fails to sustain burden)