Shinkle v. Ashtabula County Board of Revision
135 Ohio St. 3d 227
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Shinkle appealed six parcels in Ashtabula County for the 2007 tax year; BOR kept five values and reduced one.
- BTA consolidated the six appeals and held hearings, including on September 30, 2011.
- For the impound, storage, and trucking parcel, the BTA deemed the complaint defective for failure to state an amount in issue and remanded to BOR for dismissal.
- Shinkle offered expert and written appraisal evidence, which the BTA later struck or discounted as inadequate.
- BTA concluded Shinkle failed to prove a value different from the county on the five remaining parcels, so dismissed or adopted BOR values as appropriate.
- This Court affirmed, holding the amount-issue requirement jurisdictional and that the BTA reasonably weighed evidence and applied law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to state amount at issue defeats jurisdiction | Shinkle argues attachment of reasons sufficed to trigger notice. | BOR/BTA required exact amount in complaint to invoke jurisdiction. | Yes; failure to state amount is jurisdictional, warranting dismissal of that parcel. |
| Whether BTA properly required burden of proof on appellant to show value different from county | Shinkle relied on defects to argue lower value; sought independent valuation. | Appellant must prove value differs from county; BTA applied correct standard. | Yes; BTA correctly required Shinkle to prove a different value and did not abuse its discretion. |
| Whether exclusion of Damon’s testimony as expert was proper | Damon’s testimony should have been considered as expert value. | Damon did not meet qualifications; credibility and weight properly assessed by BTA. | Yes; BTA did not abuse its discretion in excluding Damon as a valuation expert. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zier v. Bur. of Unemp. Comp., 151 Ohio St. 123 (1949) (mandatory compliance to invoke jurisdiction)
- Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 27 (2009) (full compliance with R.C. 5715.19 prerequisites)
- Knickerbocker Properties, Inc. XLII v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 119 Ohio St.3d 233 (2008) (address accuracy not always jurisdictional defect)
- Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 268 (2009) (due process and valuation standards; independent valuation not required)
- Simmons v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 81 Ohio St.3d 47 (1998) (court may revert to county value when BTA cannot independently value)
- EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 1 (2005) (credibility and weight of witness testimony reviewed under abuse of discretion standard)
- Vandalia- Butler City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 Ohio St.3d 291 (2011) (evidence standards in valuation and BTA review)
- Gahanna- Jefferson Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino, 93 Ohio St.3d 231 (2001) (proper application of valuation standards and due process)
- Throckmorton v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 75 Ohio St.3d 227 (1996) (repairs evidence not sole determinant of true value)