2014 Ohio 2439
Ohio2014Background
- In June 2006 Richman Properties (Larry & Patrick Bush) bought two adjoining parcels for $135,000; each parcel had an unfinished house.
- Medina County auditor used that sale to value the two parcels for tax year 2006; 2007 reappraisal set aggregate value at $141,740 (≈5% above sale-based value).
- In December 2007 the owner subdivided the two parcels into four; the 2008 tax-lien date is January 1, 2008.
- Auditor assigned an aggregate 2008 valuation of $468,470 for the four parcels; the Board of Revision (BOR) reduced values for the two incomplete buildings and set aggregate at $383,180.
- Richman appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), which found the 2006 sale was recent and arm’s-length and therefore the best evidence of value as of Jan. 1, 2008, but remanded to the BOR to allocate the $135,000 purchase price across the four parcels.
- The county appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court arguing (1) the owner’s nonlawyer representative engaged in unauthorized practice of law at the BTA hearing and (2) the 2007 subdivision changed property character so the 2006 sale was not sufficiently recent. The court rejected the first claim but held the subdivision rebutted the recency presumption and reversed the BTA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonlawyer representative’s conduct (examining witnesses / legal argument) at BTA hearing requires reversal | Bush (owner) was authorized to file and present value; his testimony and limited examination were permissible | County: Bush crossed into unauthorized practice by cross-examining and making legal arguments; BTA erred by overruling motion in limine | Court: Although Bush likely transgressed Dayton Supply limits, county failed to show reversible error; no reversal on that ground |
| Whether a 2006 sale is "recent" for 2008 lien date after owner subdivided parcels in Dec. 2007 | Richman: 2006 arm’s-length sale is best evidence of value; presumption of recency stands despite subdivision | County: Subdivision changed character of property and was intended to increase value, so sale is not recent for 2008 valuation | Court: Subdivision was a material change affecting value; Cummins recency presumption rebutted; BTA’s use of 2006 sale was unreasonable and unlawful; BTA reversed and BOR valuations reinstated except one improvement adjustment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cummins Property Servs., L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 885 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio 2008) (defines recency as encompassing factors that change over time and affect value)
- Dayton Supply & Tool Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 856 N.E.2d 926 (Ohio 2006) (nonlawyer corporate officer may file and present claimed value but may not make legal arguments or examine witnesses as an attorney)
- Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 983 N.E.2d 1285 (Ohio 2012) (discusses who may file valuation complaints on behalf of owners following statutory amendment)
- Ace Steel Baling, Inc. v. Porterfield, 249 N.E.2d 892 (Ohio 1969) (agency findings control when conclusions contradict findings)