OM Harikrushn, L.L.C. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision
2017 Ohio 1028
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- OM Harikrushn, LLC (OMH) purchased a foreclosed hotel property at sheriff’s sale in Feb. 2014 for $1,800,000; OMH’s later appraisal (June 2014) valued the property at $1,840,000 (with $100,000 personal property).
- The Summit County Fiscal Officer assessed the property at $2,647,300 for the 2014 tax year; OMH appealed to the Summit County Board of Revision (BOR) seeking reduction to $1,840,000 (later orally amended to $1,740,000).
- At the BOR hearing OMH submitted its appraisal and testimony; the County/Board of Education presented no valuation evidence and did not object to hearsay at the BOR level.
- The BOR left the assessment unchanged; OMH appealed to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the BOR, ruling OMH’s appraisal was incompetent because it used a valuation date of May 29, 2014 rather than the tax-lien date Jan 1, 2014, and that the sale was presumed a forced sale.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding the trial court erred by summarily rejecting the appraisal without determining whether the record otherwise negated the auditor’s valuation and whether an independent valuation was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OMH) | Defendant's Argument (Board of Education) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/competence of appraisal dated after tax-lien date | Appraisal and testimony were competent and negated auditor’s valuation; BOR record lacked county proof | Appraisal is incompetent because it lacks the Jan.1 tax‑lien date and is hearsay (appraiser did not testify) | Appellate court: trial court erred to reject appraisal outright; must determine whether record negates county valuation and allows independent valuation (appraisal not necessarily completely incompetent) |
| Burden to rebut auditor’s valuation when county offers no supporting evidence | OMH argued its evidence sufficed to rebut and trigger court’s duty to independently value | County argued maintaining auditor’s valuation is proper absent sufficient proof from appellant | Held: when record contradicts auditor and county offers no evidence, court must assess sufficiency for independent valuation; trial court failed to do so |
| Use of sale price as evidence of value | OMH relied on purchase price and appraisal | County asserted sale was a forced sale, so purchase price presumed not reflective of market value | Court noted trial court found sale presumed forced and excluded it; appeals court did not decide sale issue on appeal (remanded) |
| Hearsay objection on appeal | OMH contended BOR did not object at hearing; appraisal should be considered | County raised hearsay on appeal | Court declined to address hearsay because county forfeited the argument by not objecting below |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. Bd. of Revision of Cuyahoga Cty., 16 Ohio St.3d 11 (standard of review for tax appeals)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion definition)
- Colonial Village Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (party challenging BOR bears burden; exception when record negates auditor valuation)
- Dayton-Montgomery Cty. Port Auth. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 113 Ohio St.3d 281 (duty to determine if record permits independent valuation when auditor unsupported)
- Freshwater v. Belmont Cty. Bd. of Revision, 80 Ohio St.3d 26 (tax‑lien date is crucial for valuation evidence)
- Copley-Fairlawn City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 147 Ohio St.3d 503 (an appraisal dated other than tax‑lien date may still supply usable factual comparable analysis)
- AP Hotels of Illinois, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 118 Ohio St.3d 343 (appraisal lacking tax‑lien date can contain factual data usable by tribunal)