Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of RevisionMellon Bank, N.A. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
{¶ 2} Mellon Bank previously had filed complaints with the BOR regarding the same property for tax years 1989 and 1990. For tax year 1989, the BOR adopted a stipulated fair markеt value for the property of $11,100,000. For tax year 1990, the BOR adopted the same value for the property as it had for 1989. No appеal was taken from the 1990 BOR decision.
{¶ 3} Mellon Bank’s complaint for tax year 1991 alleged that the fair market value of the property wаs $9,200,000. The Worthington City School District Board of Education (“Worthington”) filed a countercomplaint alleging that the fair market value of the prоperty should remain at the assessed value of $11,100,000.
{¶ 5} The BOR found that, during all the relevant time periods, the property in question was fully occupied by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”). On or about July 31, 1991, Nationwide and Mellon Bank entered into an amendment of their lease which extended the term for forty-six months, thereby changing the lease expiration date from September 30, 1992 to July 31,1996. In аddition the base rental under the lease was reduced from $12.75 per square foot to $6.75 per square foot for the period August 1, 1991 to July 31, 1992; then inсreased to $8.75 per square foot for the period August 1, 1991 to July 31, 1995; and finally, increased to $10.75 per square foot for the period August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996.
{¶ 6} The Bоard of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) affirmed the BOR’s dismissal of Mellon Bank’s complaint.
{¶ 7} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
Wayne E. Petkovic, for appellant.
Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and James R. Gorry, Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Franklin County Auditor and Franklin County Board of Revision.
Baker & Hostetler and George H. Boerger, for appellee Worthington City School District Board of Education.
{¶ 8}
“As used in division (A)(2) of this section, ‘interim period’ means, for each county, the tax year to which
section 5715.24 of the Revised Code applies and each subsequent tax year until the tax year in which that section applies again.“No person, board, or officer shall file а complaint against the valuation or assessment of any parcel that appears on the tax list if it filed a complaint agаinst the valuation or assessment of that parcel for any prior tax year in the same interim period, unless the person, board, or officer alleges that the valuation or assessment should be changed due to one or more of the following circumstances that оccurred after the tax lien date for the tax year for which the prior complaint was filed and that the circumstances were not taken into consideration with respect to the prior complaint:
“(a) The property was sold in an arm’s length transaction, as dеscribed in
section 5713.03 of the Revised Code ;“(b) The property lost value due to some casualty;
“(c) Substantial improvement was added to the property;
“(d) An increase or decrease of at least fifteen percent in the property’s occupancy has had a substаntial economic impact on the property.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 9} It is undisputed that, by filing for both tax years 1990 and 1991, Mellon Bank filed two complaints in the same interim period. Mellon Bank contends that
{¶ 10} The sole occupant of the entire property, both befоre and after the amendment, was Nationwide. The only changes that occurred as a result of the
{¶ 11} A reading of
“‘Occupancy’ means the actual, continuous, and exclusive use and possession of a parcel by a person having a lawful right to such use and possession.”
{¶ 12} The statutory definition of “occupancy” set forth in
“Taking possession of property and use of the same; said e.g. of a tenant’s use of leased premises. Period during which person owns, rents, and otherwise occupies real property or premises. ***”
{¶ 13} The relevant criteria used in the above definitions of “occupancy” are “use” and “possession.” For leased proрerty, an increase or decrease in occupancy is measured by how much of the property is used and possessed by the tenants. For example, if one tenant possesses the entire property and later the entire property is occupied by five tenants, the occupancy of the property has not increased or decreased, only the number of occupants has changed. Furthermore, the rent received for a property does not measure the amount of use and possession of the рroperty.
{¶ 15} We affirm the decision of the BTA, dismissing the complaint, as being reasonable and lawful.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.