NWD 300 Spring, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revisions (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 7579
| Ohio | 2017Background
- North Bank is a 100-unit condominium on a 1.01-acre site in Columbus; for tax year 2013 unit owners were taxed only on their proportionate share of the land value because improvements had an abatement.
- In 2011 the county auditor increased the parcel-level land value dramatically (from about $959k to $6.3M); unit owners and developer filed complaints for 2013; Columbus City Schools Board of Education (BOE) filed countercomplaints.
- Unit owners submitted an appraisal by MAI appraiser Debi Wilcox valuing the land at $1.2M based on comparables developed into apartment projects and criticized the auditor’s allocation method.
- BOE submitted an appraisal by MAI appraiser Thomas Sprout valuing the land at $3.3M using a broader set of commercial/mixed-use downtown comparables and square-foot analysis; both appraisals treated the land as unimproved.
- The Board of Revision (BOR) sided with the auditor’s higher valuation (adopted as-apportioned/as-improved approach); the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed the BOR as to methodology and adopted the BOE’s $3.3M land valuation for 2013, remanding 2014 issues to the BOR.
- Unit owners appealed the BTA decision to the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the BTA’s choice of the BOE appraisal over their appraisal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BTA erred in adopting BOE's $3.3M land valuation rather than unit owners' $1.2M appraisal | Wilcox: comparables should be apartment-development land sales; BOE used inappropriate downtown mixed-use comparables and failed to adjust for time/size | BOE: Sprout used a wider, more appropriate set of commercial/mixed-use comparables, square-foot analysis, and made appropriate adjustments | Court: Affirmed BTA — BTA did not abuse discretion; BOE appraisal was more probative and based on permissible professional judgment |
| Whether the auditor’s alleged allocation method (assigning land value as fixed percentage of condo retail price) controls outcome | Unit owners argued allocation method is improper | BOE/BTA relied on appraisals rather than auditor allocation; auditor's method not before court | Court: Did not address auditor’s allocation method because it was not dispositive and was not challenged in a material way |
| Whether BTA erred by remanding 2014 valuation rather than carrying forward 2013 value | Unit owners argued BTA should have carried forward 2013 value | BTA found BOR lacked jurisdiction to set 2014 value when complaint period open and remanded to BOR | Court: Unit owners forfeited this argument on appeal because their notice of appeal did not raise the issue |
| Whether BTA abused discretion evaluating witness credibility and appraisal weight | Unit owners contended BTA misweighed evidence and ignored flaws in BOE comparables | BTA exercised discretion in weighing appraisals and credibility; differences reflect professional judgments | Court: No abuse of discretion; factual findings supported by probative evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 1 (BTA factfinding and appraisal-weight review standard)
- Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 44 Ohio St.2d 13 (BTA discretion in weighing evidence and credibility)
- R.R.Z. Assocs. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 38 Ohio St.3d 198 (court will not overturn BTA factual findings supported by probative evidence)
- Renacci v. Testa, 148 Ohio St.3d 470 (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 144 Ohio St.3d 421 (preservation of issues for appeal from BTA)