Schutz v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
100 N.E.3d 362
Ohio2018Background
- Appellant Alex Schutz owned a Cleveland Heights residential property valued by the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer at $104,100 for tax year 2012 (reappraisal year). Schutz sought reduction to $40,000.
- At the BOR, Schutz presented his January 2009 purchase for $14,300, evidence of housing-code violations and repairs, a denied 2010 loan application, and an unsuccessful listing near $70,000; BOR retained the fiscal officer’s valuation.
- At the BTA, Schutz added neighborhood sale-price lists (median claimed $33,500) and noted prior stipulations to a $14,300 value for 2009–2010; the county introduced no new evidence for $104,100.
- The BTA concluded Schutz’s 2009 purchase was too remote from the January 1, 2012 lien date and held Schutz failed to present a competent appraisal attested by a qualified expert; it therefore retained the fiscal officer’s valuation.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the BTA’s mixed factual and legal determinations, deferring to factual findings supported by the record and reviewing legal sufficiency de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Schutz's Argument | County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which party bears burden to prove valuation at BTA? | BTA should require county to justify fiscal officer’s valuation. | Complainant challenging BOR/BTA decision bears burden to prove his proposed value. | Held for county: challenger (Schutz) bears burden; if challenger fails, county need not prove original valuation. |
| Must a challenger submit an expert appraisal when no recent sale exists? | BTA erred by saying Schutz was required to provide an expert appraisal. | If no qualifying recent sale, challenger must prove alternative value; expert appraisal often required to carry burden. | Held: Owner may provide nonexpert evidence or calculations, but here BTA should have considered other evidence; nevertheless lack of sufficient proof justified retaining valuation. |
| Were Schutz’s nonappraisal items (2009 sale, listing attempts, neighborhood sales, property condition) sufficient to prove $40,000? | These items collectively show true value was $40,000. | The evidence was remote, unverified, unadjusted, or insufficient to establish value at lien date. | Held for county: each category was legally insufficient to prove $40,000; 2009 sale was too remote and unsupported owner-opinion flawed. |
| Did BTA’s alleged errors violate due process / require remand? | Cumulative errors deprived Schutz of an impartial hearing. | Individual claims lack merit; no reversible error. | Held for county: no reversible error; remand unnecessary because unaddressed evidence would not have sufficed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision v. Fodor, 239 N.E.2d 25 (Ohio 1968) (valuation for tax purposes is a factual determination primarily for taxing authorities)
- EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 829 N.E.2d 686 (Ohio 2005) (challenger must demonstrate that the value it advocates is the correct value)
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 915 N.E.2d 1196 (Ohio 2009) (if challenger fails to carry burden, county need not prove accuracy of original appraisal)
- Akron City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 9 N.E.3d 1004 (Ohio 2014) (sales more than 24 months before lien date are not presumed recent in a six-year reappraisal without evidence of unchanged market/character)
- Amsdell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 635 N.E.2d 11 (Ohio 1994) (purchase price plus cost of improvements can, in some circumstances, support valuation)
- Throckmorton v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 661 N.E.2d 1095 (Ohio 1996) (evidence of needed repairs alone will not prove true value)
- Moskowitz v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 N.E.3d 870 (Ohio 2017) (court will affirm BTA valuation if challenger fails to satisfy evidentiary burden)