2018 Ohio 4668
Ohio2018Background
- Michael Majeski purchased 888 Clarence Avenue in July 2008 for $9,501 and later conveyed it to Mars Urban Solutions, L.L.C.
- Majeski filed valuation complaints for tax years 2008–2010; the BOR reduced value for 2008–2009 but retained the fiscal officer’s 2010 value, prompting Majeski to appeal to the BTA.
- On March 7, 2014, the BTA found the 2008 arm’s-length sale dispositive and set the property’s true value as of January 1, 2010 at $9,500.
- Relators sought a writ of mandamus in state supreme court alleging the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer and BOR failed to implement the BTA’s 2010 reduction and improperly refused to carry that value into later years.
- County officials submitted affidavits and records showing they processed the BTA order, credited/refunded Majeski for 2010, and recorded the $9,500 value for 2010 (which also governed 2011 as the triennium carryover).
- The court considered whether the BTA’s 2010/2011 determination must carry forward beyond the 2011 triennium into the subsequent sexennial reassessment and whether mandamus relief was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the fiscal officer and BOR fail to comply with the BTA’s 2010 order? | Majeski/Mars: county did not implement BTA reduction or give appropriate refunds/credits. | County: records and affidavits show the RPD and BOR processed the BTA order, issued credits/refunds, and recorded $9,500 for 2010. | Held: County complied; relators did not prove noncompliance by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Does the BTA’s 2010 valuation automatically carry forward beyond 2011 into the next sexennial reassessment? | Majeski/Mars: $9,500 should apply to subsequent tax years; county may change value only in limited circumstances. | County: BTA decision applies to 2010 and, by triennial carryover, to 2011; each tax year is a separate claim and sexennial reappraisal may set new values. | Held: BTA decision applied to 2010 and 2011 only; relators must bring new claims for later years—carryover does not bind the next sexennial valuation. |
| Is mandamus available to compel application of the BTA value beyond the triennium? | Majeski/Mars: mandamus necessary because county refused to apply the reduced value to later years. | County: relators had adequate remedy—file new valuation complaints each year; no clear legal duty to apply prior year value into new sexennium. | Held: Mandamus denied—relators lacked a clear right and had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. |
| Were relators’ submitted appellate appendices admissible as evidence? | Majeski/Mars: relied on appendices included with briefs. | County: appendices did not comply with rules and cannot substitute for evidence requested by court. | Held: Court refused to consider noncomplying appendices; relators did not submit required evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 87 Ohio St.3d 305 (discusses requirement that tax officials make changes required by BTA orders)
- AERC Saw Mill Village, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 127 Ohio St.3d 44 (triennial carryover rules and that redetermined value carries through the triennium)
- Olmsted Falls Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 122 Ohio St.3d 134 (each tax year is a separate claim; prior-year valuation does not have res judicata effect on next year)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (mandamus standard and requirements)
- State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (relator must prove entitlement to mandamus by clear and convincing evidence)