2013 Ohio 697
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Scranton-Averell owns 1920 Scranton Road parcels (004-28-004 to 004-28-008) taxed on two bills for 2009, with 004-28-008 billed separately.
- Auditor valued the parcels collectively at 416,900 ($147,000 land, $272,200 buildings) with 004-28-008 at 71,500; others at 345,400.
- Scranton-Averell filed two BOR complaints March 30, 2011 seeking 99% reductions to 1,000 each; CMSD countered to keep auditor’s values.
- BOR heard evidence Oct. 24, 2011; Davis (MAI) opined buildings had no value and demolition would yield 264,000; land value vacant would be 125,000.
- BOR denied reductions, but increased land value by 264,000, arguing demolition costs were apportioned and added to auditor’s value; building value set to 0.
- Trial court, on appeal, reversed BOR, finding the valuation increase arbitrary and the evidence warranted reductions to 1,000 each; CMSD appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion on CMSD’s Civ.R. 6(B) extension request? | CMSD lacked timely extension; stipulated seven-day rule violated; court should grant extension for research. | Court properly denied extension under seven-day rule and no prejudice shown. | No abuse of discretion; extension denied. |
| Whether the trial court properly reversed BOR’s valuation decision de novo? | Trial court should independently reevaluate evidence and uphold reduction. | BOR’s valuation should be reviewed, but not reweighed wholesale; standard of review limited. | Trial court’s reversal affirmed; independent review supported a $1,000 per parcel valuation. |
| Whether Scranton-Averell met its burden to prove right to a reduction in value? | Davis’s appraisal and demolition-cost deductions support zero value, or $1,000 cap. | Auditor/bord valuation presumed valid absent contrary evidence; burden on owner to prove correct value. | Scranton-Averell presented competent probative evidence; trial court properly adopted its valuation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. Bd. of Revision, 16 Ohio St.3d 11 (Ohio 1985) (requires more than mere review; independent judgment possible)
- Murray & Co. Marina, Inc. v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio App.3d 166 (6th Dist. 1997) (auditor's duty to defend valuation triggered by probative evidence)
- Restivo v. Ottawa Cty. Bd. of Revision, 6th Dist. No. 99-OT-052, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 6399 (Dec. 30, 1999) (recognizes de novo review but not original trial)
- Amsdell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 69 Ohio St.3d 572 (1994) (taxpayer must prove correct value; not entitled by silence)
- Springfield Local Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 68 Ohio St.3d 493 (1994) (no presumption of validity for auditor or board valuation)
- Tall Pines Holdings, Ltd. v. Testa, 2005-Ohio-2963 (10th Dist. 2005) (thorough, independent review encouraged in de novo valuation appeals)