Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delware Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
147 Ohio St. 3d 409
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Owner bought a 29.307-acre, undeveloped, three-parcel tract in Feb. 2007 for $4,700,000 to develop ranch condominiums; auditor used that sale to value the property for tax purposes.
- By tax year 2010 two parcels were in the CAUV program; only a 0.659-acre parcel remained outside CAUV but valuation needed to treat parcels as an economic unit for development.
- Owner sought reduction for 2010; at the BOR hearing owner presented testimony and an appraisal for a nearby parcel; BOE objected to the appraisal.
- The BOR reduced the auditor’s values based on a deputy auditor’s report (prepared before the BOR hearing but not provided to parties or introduced at the hearing) and later certified that report to the BTA.
- The BTA upheld the BOR reductions, concluding the 2007 sale was not a reliable indicator of 2010 value; BOE appealed arguing procedural and substantive error in relying on the deputy auditor’s report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of BOR’s reliance on deputy auditor’s report | BOR/BTA improperly relied on an uncertified, non-testified deputy report and its comparables | BOR/BTA contended record supported reductions and sale was unreliable by lien date | Court: BTA erred by failing to assess probative value of deputy report before adopting it; vacated for lack of analysis |
| Whether auditor’s 2007 sale price should be reinstated | Auditor’s sale price should be reinstated as default valuation | Sale price was rebutted by evidence of market decline and thus unreliable | Court: Sale price was negated by record evidence; reinstatement inappropriate without independent valuation |
| Whether BTA must perform independent valuation | BOE: competent evidence standard requires auditor value if record insufficient | Owner/BOR: record supports BOR adjustments; BTA approved | Court: When auditor’s valuation is negated, BTA must attempt an independent valuation using record and may take additional evidence; remand ordered |
| Procedural challenge that deputy report was not produced/could not be cross-examined | BOE: BOR erred procedurally because report was not available and deputy didn’t testify | BOR/BTA relied on report as part of information available to BOR | Court: Procedural objection not decided here because BOE failed to preserve issue on appeal to this court; court expresses no opinion on merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (2009) (when auditor’s valuation is negated, tribunal must attempt an independent valuation)
- Dayton-Montgomery Cty. Port Auth. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 113 Ohio St.3d 281 (2007) (auditor’s valuation can be rebutted; tribunal must weigh record evidence)
- Park Ridge Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 29 Ohio St.3d 12 (1987) (treating parcels as an economic unit for valuation when held for development)
- Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 212 (2014) (BTA reviews de novo use of sale price as valuation)
- AP Hotels of Illinois, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 118 Ohio St.3d 343 (2008) (post-sale events can rebut presumptive value of an earlier sale)
- Shinkle v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Revision, 135 Ohio St.3d 227 (2013) (absence of record evidence may permit reinstatement but BTA still must weigh evidence)
- Vandalia-Butler City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 Ohio St.3d 291 (2011) (gaps in the record do not relieve BTA of its obligation to independently weigh evidence)
- Akron City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 92 (2014) (distinguishes cases where auditor disregarded a sale during reappraisal from cases where auditor relied on a sale)