2021 Ohio 1504
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Subject property: 6840 Pontius Road, Groveport (Franklin County); tax year 2018.
- Auditor assessed total value $14,500,000: land $3,049,200; taxable improvements $560,800; exempt improvements $10,890,000.
- Groveport Madison BOE filed complaint seeking total value be set at $31,600,000 based on a March 8, 2018 arm’s‑length sale; appellants (Zeller entities) counterclaimed to reduce land value to $2,422,000 and to treat all improvements as CRA‑exempt.
- Appellants’ only valuation evidence was appraiser Martin Hunter, who appraised the land as vacant (using vacant‑land comparables), did not value improvements or the total property, and did not value the land as it then existed on the lien date.
- Board adopted the $31,600,000 sale price but allocated value consistent with the Auditor (leaving $560,800 taxable); common pleas court affirmed; appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants proved land fair‑market value < assessed value | Hunter appraisal shows land value $2,422,000 (vacant‑land basis); complies with valuation rules | Appraisal unreliable: not as of lien date, used vacant comparables though highest & best use is improved; burden on appellants to prove change | Court affirmed: appellants failed to present competent/probative evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Auditor may treat some improvements as taxable despite city housing officer CRA certification | City housing officer certified exemptions; improvements should be exempt under R.C. 3735.67 | Eligibility depends on the municipal CRA resolution terms; appellants failed to produce the CRA resolution for review | Court affirmed: appellants did not submit municipal resolution; insufficient evidence to establish exemption for all improvements |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. Bd. of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 16 Ohio St.3d 11 (1985) (trial court applies independent judgment on valuation appeals)
- Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 68 Ohio St.3d 336 (1994) (burden on party seeking change in valuation)
- Licking Hts. Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 154 Ohio St.3d 157 (2018) (board has jurisdiction over entire valuation and may reallocate land/improvement values)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (definition of unreasonable decision)
- Cincinnati v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 69 Ohio St.3d 301 (1994) (trial court must conduct thorough, independent review)