2009 Ohio 982 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2009
{¶ 2} On January 31, 2007, appellant filed a complaint with appellees, the Licking County Board of Revision (hereinafter "BOR") and the Licking County Auditor, to decrease the value of the subject property to a true value of $113,800.00 for the tax year 2006. The BOR decreased the value of the property to a true value of $157,600.00.
{¶ 3} Appellant then filed an appeal with the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (hereinafter "BTA"). A hearing was held on March 3, 2008. By decision and order entered July 29, 2008, the BTA upheld the BOR's valuation.
{¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
{¶ 8} Appeals from the BTA are governed by R.C.
{¶ 9} "If upon hearing and consideration of such record and evidence the court decides that the decision of the board appealed from is reasonable and lawful it shall affirm the same, but if the court decides that such decision of the board is unreasonable or unlawful, the court shall reverse and vacate the decision or modify it and enter final judgment in accordance with such modification."
{¶ 10} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 11} "The county auditor, from the best sources of information available, shall determine, as nearly as practicable, the true value of each separate tract, lot, or parcel of real property and of buildings, structures, and improvements located thereon and the current agricultural use value of land valued for tax purposes in accordance with section
{¶ 12} "(A) The tract, lot, or parcel of real estate loses value due to some casualty;
{¶ 13} "(B) An improvement is added to the property. Nothing in this section or section
{¶ 14} Appellant sought a true value on his property equivalent to the sale price, $113,800.00. By decision and order entered July 29, 2008, the BTA found appellant's testimony established he purchased the subject property in January of 2007 from HUD. As a result, the purchase was not an "arm's length" transaction, and the sale price was inapplicable. In support, the BTA cited the case of Donald C. Wright Investments, LLC v.Montgomery County Board of Revision, Et Al. (June 10, 2005), BTA No. 2003-M-1828, wherein the BTA held the following:
{¶ 15} "We have also rejected sale prices when those prices were the result of a purchase from HUD after HUD had received title to the property pursuant to its mortgage guarantee.***In rejecting the purchase price garnered through foreclosure or HUD sale as evidence of value, the board does not mean to suggest that such a sale *5 cannot, under any circumstance, reflect market value. However, the statutes and case law are clear that a sale price garnered in such sales must be rejected as evidence of market value for ad valorem taxation purposes." (Citations omitted.) See, also, TSM Partners, Inc. v.Montgomery County Board of Revision (February 18, 2005), BTA No. 2003-V-1825.
{¶ 16} Appellant goes to great lengths to refute the "carte blanche" rejection of a HUD sale by arguing the property was on the open market for some two hundred and twenty days with an asking price of $133,000.00 before he purchased the property. He also argues depreciated value of the property because it was sold "AS IS" adjoining commercial property and allegedly containing mold.
{¶ 17} In his brief at 7, appellant attempts to bolster his valuation by arguing an identical property located at 402 Green Apple Place, Pataskala, Ohio, sold within two weeks of the subject property for $117,725.00. No evidence was presented during the BTA hearing regarding this property.
{¶ 18} Appellant presented six comparables, only two of which were disclosed prior to the hearing. The BTA rejected both of the disclosed sales because they involved foreclosures. The BTA noted no evidence was presented describing the sales of the additional four properties therefore, it was unable to determine whether the sales were arm's length in nature.
{¶ 19} The BTA also rejected appellant's income approach to value based upon possible rental income. The BTA concluded no evidence was presented to corroborate appellant's numbers and "further information is needed to effectively calculate a value for the subject property based on the income approach." *6
{¶ 20} In conclusion, the BTA stated, "In summary, we must conclude that appellant has not presented the competent and probative evidence that is required to meet his burden of proof." See, Columbus City SchoolDistrict Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision,
{¶ 21} From our reading of the BTA's decision, we conclude the BTA based its decision on the lack of credible evidence to support appellant's opinion as to the property's value. We note the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison (1990),
{¶ 22} We will address the BTA's decision under the applicable standard of review, as we cannot supplant our personal opinion upon the facts. Our analysis centers on whether the decision was unreasonable or unlawful. See, R.C.
{¶ 24} In his Exhibit A, appellant presented six comparable sales to substantiate his valuation:
{¶ 25} 1. 1398 Harold Stewart Parkway sold on July 26, 2007 for $100,000.00;
{¶ 26} 2. 1300 Harold Stewart Parkway sold on April 25, 2007 for $145,000.00;
{¶ 27} 3. 220 Isaac Tharp Street sold on October 29, 2007 for $121,400.00;
{¶ 28} 4. 133 Penrod Avenue sold on August 29, 2007 for $138,000.00;
{¶ 29} 5. 198 Purple Finch Loop sold on March 30, 2007 for $135,100.00; and
{¶ 30} 6. 1021 Oxford sold on August 29, 2007 for $136,000.00.
{¶ 31} Appellant did not present verification of these sales. T. at 28. He did not know if the sales involved HUD or bank foreclosures. Id. When asked if he obtained an appraisal of the subject property, appellant stated, "[o]ther than the one I did myself, based on my experience, no." T. at 29.
{¶ 32} Debbie Buchanan, appraiser for the Licking County Auditor's Office, testified the 1398 Harold Stewart Parkway property and the 1021 Oxford Street property involved foreclosure sales. T. at 32-33, 37-38. Ms. Buchanan did not have an opinion as to the value of the other four properties because she was unaware of appellant's reliance on them. T. at 39-40.
{¶ 33} The BTA chose to accept the BOR's decrease of true value on the subject property from $178,500.00 to $157,600.00. This valuation was substantiated by Ms. Buchanan in appellees' Exhibit 1. T. at 42-48. The properties listed in said exhibit were *8 used to determine a square footage cost. The majority of the properties were in the $100.00 to $115.00 per square foot range, as opposed to appellant's valuation of $53.07 to $79.00 per square foot. T. at 19-22, 47.
{¶ 34} We find the BTA's decision to be supported by the evidence in the record provided by Ms. Buchanan. We further find because of appellant's lack of verification of his comparable sales and lack of an arm's length sale supported by the evidence, the BTA was correct in rejecting appellant's valuation.
{¶ 35} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
{¶ 36} The judgment of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals is hereby affirmed.
Farmer, P.J. Gwin, J. and Wise, J. concur. *9