Othman v. Princeton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.
2017 Ohio 9115
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Amani and Akram Othman appealed the 2014 valuation of their commercial property at 100 Tri-County Parkway, seeking reduction from $4,997,430 to $880,000; the county auditor had set value at $4,997,430 and the board of revision sustained that valuation.
- The Othmans appealed to the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court; the magistrate and the trial court initially affirmed the board of revision and denied supplementation of the record with an independent appraisal.
- The Othmans filed for reconsideration (and alternatively Civ.R. 60(B) relief) and sought a limited remand from the First District Court of Appeals; this court granted a limited remand to the trial court to consider the motion.
- On remand the trial court reopened the record, admitted the Othmans’ appraiser Eric Gardner and his appraisal (opining market value ~$950,000 as of Jan. 1, 2014), and considered evidence of a December 2016 sale for $950,000.
- The trial court granted reconsideration and set taxable value for 2014–2016 at $950,000; the school district appealed that March 2017 judgment, and the Othmans’ separate appeal was dismissed for lack of assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Othman) | Defendant's Argument (Princeton Bd. of Ed.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to order a limited remand because the trial court’s Nov. 2016 order was final | Othmans proceeded by appeal and sought remand to allow reconsideration and evidence | School district: Nov. 2016 order adopting magistrate’s decision lacked a Civ.R. 53 judgment entry and was not final, so this court lacked jurisdiction to remand | Court: Nov. 2016 order was interlocutory; trial court retained authority to reconsider and did not abuse discretion — assignment overruled |
| 2. Whether the trial court erred by reconsidering its 2015 denial of supplementation and admitting additional evidence on remand | Othmans: trial court may reconsider interlocutory orders and under R.C. 5717.05 may take additional evidence | School district: 2015 order denying supplementation was a final, appealable order (local stamp) and therefore not subject to reconsideration | Court: 2015 order was interlocutory; local stamp does not make nonfinal order final; trial court properly exercised discretion to admit additional evidence — assignment overruled |
| 3. Whether Othmans met burden to prove taxable value $950,000 given sale timing and appraisal reliability | Othmans: appraisal and December 2016 sale support $950,000 valuation; court may weigh evidence under R.C. 5717.05 | School district: sale occurred ~3 years after lien date so recency presumption fails; appraisal contained questionable adjustments and cap rate | Court: sale was not recent so burden remained on Othmans, but trial court permissibly considered sale and Gardner’s appraisal; weight/credibility determinations were within trial court’s discretion — assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 83 N.E.3d 916 (Ohio 2017) (recent arm’s-length sale is preferred evidence of true value)
- Conalco, Inc. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Revision, 363 N.E.2d 722 (Ohio 1977) (sale as measure of true value)
- HIN, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 5 N.E.3d 637 (Ohio 2014) (presumption of recency for sales and its limits)
- Akron City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 9 N.E.3d 1004 (Ohio 2014) (no bright-line recency rule; sales >24 months before lien date not presumed recent)
- Black v. Bd. of Revision of Cuyahoga Cty., 475 N.E.2d 1264 (Ohio 1984) (trial court must independently determine taxable value on appeal)
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 541 N.E.2d 64 (Ohio 1989) (requirements for final, appealable order)
- Cincinnati School Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 677 N.E.2d 1197 (Ohio 1997) (burden of persuasion remains with appellant seeking valuation reduction)