2018 Ohio 1174
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- John D. Walls purchased a former YMCA property in 2009 for $90,000. The Lorain County auditor valued the property at $610,900 before the 2012 reappraisal and then set it at $303,500 for tax year 2012.
- Walls challenged the 2012 valuation before the Lorain County Board of Revision (BOR) and then the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA); the BOR and BTA upheld the auditor’s $303,500 valuation, and this Court previously affirmed that decision.
- In August 2016 Lorain County filed a tax-foreclosure action to collect delinquent taxes on the subject property.
- Walls defended the foreclosure by reasserting that the taxable value should be $90,000 and that he had been paying taxes on that amount.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Lorain County in June 2017, concluding that the foreclosure action was not the proper forum to relitigate the auditor’s valuation and that Walls had not raised any other defense.
- Walls appealed, arguing the trial court erred by relying on the doctrine (or concept) of exhaustion of administrative remedies and by refusing to accept the $90,000 valuation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because Walls had exhausted administrative remedies and the auditor’s valuation should be $90,000 | Walls: He exhausted administrative remedies and the BOR/BTA decisions support a $90,000 value; foreclosure is improper given that value | County: The BOR/BTA and this Court already upheld the auditor’s $303,500 valuation; foreclosure is not the proper vehicle to relitigate valuation | Court: No error. Prior administrative/BTA rulings and this Court’s prior affirmance mean no genuine issue of material fact on valuation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Walls may raise a constitutional takings claim on appeal | Walls: Collection of taxes at the assessed value constitutes an unlawful taking | County: (Implicit) Walls did not raise this at trial, so it’s forfeited | Court: Forfeited — issue not raised below; Court will not consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo standard of review for summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard and Civ.R. 56 principles)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (view facts in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Perez v. Scripps–Howard Broadcasting Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 215 (competing inferences resolved for nonmoving party)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (party seeking summary judgment bears initial burden; nonmoving party’s reciprocal burden)
- Zier v. Bureau of Unemp. Comp., 151 Ohio St. 123 (appeals must be perfected in the statutory mode)