[Cite as Goldshtein v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 2026-Ohio-836.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
SAMYEL GOLDSHTEIN, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 115676 v. :
FISCAL OFFICER CUYAHOGA : COUNTY, : Defendant-Appellee.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 12, 2026
Administrative Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-25-121191
Appearances:
Samyel Goldshtein, pro se.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Edmund Tallos, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:
Plaintiff-appellant Samyel Goldshtein (“Goldshtein”) appeals the trial
court’s decision affirming the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision’s (“BOR”) findings declining to reduce the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer’s assessment of the
value of his property. We affirm the trial court’s decision.
I. Facts and Procedural History
In August 2024, Goldshtein received a letter from the appraisal
department of Cuyahoga County informing him that the assessed value of his
property was raised from $47,700 to $165,100. Goldshtein hired an appraiser, who
completed an exterior-only appraisal, and appraised the property for $75,000.
Goldshtein provided a copy of the appraisal to the county. When the assessed value
of the property remained unchanged, Goldshtein filed a complaint with the BOR.
A hearing was set, and Goldshtein appeared telephonically. He
testified about the condition of his home, the increase in the assessed value, lead
hazards without submission of remediation costs, and that it was a rental property
that had not been rented in 2024, and he submitted the report from the appraiser.
The appraiser did not appear at the hearing to testify. The BOR found that
Goldshtein’s evidence was insufficient and maintained that the value of the property
was $165,100.
Goldshtein appealed the BOR’s decision to the Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Court but did not request a hearing. The case was submitted on
briefs, and the same evidence that was provided to the BOR was also provided to the
trial court. Again, the appraiser hired by Goldshtein did not testify. On
September 30, 2025, the trial court issued a decision affirming the BOR’s decision.
In the trial court’s judgment entry, it stated in part: Appellant appeared before the Board of Revision and testified about the increase in assessed value for the 2024 sexennial update, the condition of the property, and a non-tax lien dated exterior only appraisal. Appellant did not present any written estimates or written costs of repair. The Board of Revision found that Appellant did not present sufficient probative evidence to support a reduction in value of the home.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that absent proof that the action of a Board of Revision was not performed in good faith and in the exercise of sound judgment, the action of the Board of Revision in determining the value of real property for tax purposes must be presumed to be valid; and a taxpayer has the duty to prove his right to a reduction in the valuation of real property. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, 68 Ohio St. 3d 336, 626 N.E.2d 933 (1994). This Court finds that Appellant’s appeal does not establish by reliable evidence that the decision of the Board of Revision is in error. The Court finds that Appellant did not present any probative and competent evidence that would justify the decrease in value of the home.
Judgment Entry No. 202119760 (Sept. 30, 2025).
Goldshtein filed this appeal assigning one error for our review:
The trial court abused its discretion finding, without a hearing, the appellant did not establish reliable evidence that the decision of the BOR is in error.
II. Standard of Review
“‘The fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of
fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing
authorities.’” Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2025-Ohio-
2990, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), quoting MREV Archwood, LLC v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of
Revision, 2022-Ohio-2356, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.). “Under R.C. 5717.05, ‘[t]he common
pleas court then reviews that decision de novo.’” Id., citing id. “On appeal to this
court, the judgment of the common pleas court addressing questions of fact including the weight to be given to appraisal evidence shall not be disturbed absent
a showing of abuse of discretion.” (Cleaned up.) Id. “In particular, the decision to
adopt one appraisal of land value over another appraisal of land value is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion.” Id., citing Viola Assocs., LLC v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of
Revision, 2021-Ohio-991, ¶ 36 (9th Dist.).
III. Law and Analysis
In Goldshtein’s sole assignment of error, he argues that the trial court
just rubber-stamped the BOR’s decision without giving him a chance to have his day
in court and protect himself. As this court stated in Costco, the Supreme Court in
Black v. Bd. of Revision, 16 Ohio St.3d 11, 13-14 (1985), clarified the duty imposed
upon a court of common pleas when reviewing a decision from a board of revision
under R.C. 5717.05.
“[T]he common pleas court has a duty on appeal to independently weigh and evaluate all evidence properly before it. The court is then required to make an independent determination concerning the valuation of the property at issue. The court’s review of the evidence should be thorough and comprehensive and, should ensure that its final determination is more than a mere rubber stamping of the board of revision’s determination.
...
While R.C. 5717.05 requires more than a mere review of the decisions of the board of revision, that review may be properly limited to a comprehensive consideration of existing evidence and, in the court’s discretion, to an examination of additional evidence. The court should consider all such evidence and determine the taxable value through its independent judgment. In effect, R.C. 5717.05 contemplates a decision de novo. It does not, however, provide for an original action or trial de novo.”
Costco at ¶ 11, quoting Black at 13-14. The trial court must also demonstrate that its final determination of
value is more than a mere rubber-stamping of the BOR’s determination.
Having determined that R.C. 5717.05 requires the trial court to independently determine value, the question becomes: how does the trial court demonstrate that it has in fact made an independent determination of value? In general, a trial court only “speaks through” its journal entries.
Id. at ¶ 12, quoting Hopkins v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2024-
Ohio-2265, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.).
“Moreover, it is a generally accepted principle that a trial court is not
required to explain the reasoning for its decisions or otherwise issue findings of fact
and conclusions of law unless required to do so by a rule or statute.” Costco, 2025-
Ohio-2990, at ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). See, e.g., State v. Lusane, 2018-Ohio-1775, ¶ 18-20
(8th Dist.); State v. Francis, 2004-Ohio-6894, ¶ 56. “Indeed, it has been often noted
by appellate courts that while the best practice for a trial court is to set forth their
reasoning for a ruling, the failure to provide any analysis is not in and of itself an
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Goldshtein v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 2026-Ohio-836.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
SAMYEL GOLDSHTEIN, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 115676 v. :
FISCAL OFFICER CUYAHOGA : COUNTY, : Defendant-Appellee.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 12, 2026
Administrative Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-25-121191
Appearances:
Samyel Goldshtein, pro se.
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Edmund Tallos, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:
Plaintiff-appellant Samyel Goldshtein (“Goldshtein”) appeals the trial
court’s decision affirming the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision’s (“BOR”) findings declining to reduce the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer’s assessment of the
value of his property. We affirm the trial court’s decision.
I. Facts and Procedural History
In August 2024, Goldshtein received a letter from the appraisal
department of Cuyahoga County informing him that the assessed value of his
property was raised from $47,700 to $165,100. Goldshtein hired an appraiser, who
completed an exterior-only appraisal, and appraised the property for $75,000.
Goldshtein provided a copy of the appraisal to the county. When the assessed value
of the property remained unchanged, Goldshtein filed a complaint with the BOR.
A hearing was set, and Goldshtein appeared telephonically. He
testified about the condition of his home, the increase in the assessed value, lead
hazards without submission of remediation costs, and that it was a rental property
that had not been rented in 2024, and he submitted the report from the appraiser.
The appraiser did not appear at the hearing to testify. The BOR found that
Goldshtein’s evidence was insufficient and maintained that the value of the property
was $165,100.
Goldshtein appealed the BOR’s decision to the Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Court but did not request a hearing. The case was submitted on
briefs, and the same evidence that was provided to the BOR was also provided to the
trial court. Again, the appraiser hired by Goldshtein did not testify. On
September 30, 2025, the trial court issued a decision affirming the BOR’s decision.
In the trial court’s judgment entry, it stated in part: Appellant appeared before the Board of Revision and testified about the increase in assessed value for the 2024 sexennial update, the condition of the property, and a non-tax lien dated exterior only appraisal. Appellant did not present any written estimates or written costs of repair. The Board of Revision found that Appellant did not present sufficient probative evidence to support a reduction in value of the home.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that absent proof that the action of a Board of Revision was not performed in good faith and in the exercise of sound judgment, the action of the Board of Revision in determining the value of real property for tax purposes must be presumed to be valid; and a taxpayer has the duty to prove his right to a reduction in the valuation of real property. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, 68 Ohio St. 3d 336, 626 N.E.2d 933 (1994). This Court finds that Appellant’s appeal does not establish by reliable evidence that the decision of the Board of Revision is in error. The Court finds that Appellant did not present any probative and competent evidence that would justify the decrease in value of the home.
Judgment Entry No. 202119760 (Sept. 30, 2025).
Goldshtein filed this appeal assigning one error for our review:
The trial court abused its discretion finding, without a hearing, the appellant did not establish reliable evidence that the decision of the BOR is in error.
II. Standard of Review
“‘The fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of
fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing
authorities.’” Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2025-Ohio-
2990, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), quoting MREV Archwood, LLC v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of
Revision, 2022-Ohio-2356, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.). “Under R.C. 5717.05, ‘[t]he common
pleas court then reviews that decision de novo.’” Id., citing id. “On appeal to this
court, the judgment of the common pleas court addressing questions of fact including the weight to be given to appraisal evidence shall not be disturbed absent
a showing of abuse of discretion.” (Cleaned up.) Id. “In particular, the decision to
adopt one appraisal of land value over another appraisal of land value is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion.” Id., citing Viola Assocs., LLC v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of
Revision, 2021-Ohio-991, ¶ 36 (9th Dist.).
III. Law and Analysis
In Goldshtein’s sole assignment of error, he argues that the trial court
just rubber-stamped the BOR’s decision without giving him a chance to have his day
in court and protect himself. As this court stated in Costco, the Supreme Court in
Black v. Bd. of Revision, 16 Ohio St.3d 11, 13-14 (1985), clarified the duty imposed
upon a court of common pleas when reviewing a decision from a board of revision
under R.C. 5717.05.
“[T]he common pleas court has a duty on appeal to independently weigh and evaluate all evidence properly before it. The court is then required to make an independent determination concerning the valuation of the property at issue. The court’s review of the evidence should be thorough and comprehensive and, should ensure that its final determination is more than a mere rubber stamping of the board of revision’s determination.
...
While R.C. 5717.05 requires more than a mere review of the decisions of the board of revision, that review may be properly limited to a comprehensive consideration of existing evidence and, in the court’s discretion, to an examination of additional evidence. The court should consider all such evidence and determine the taxable value through its independent judgment. In effect, R.C. 5717.05 contemplates a decision de novo. It does not, however, provide for an original action or trial de novo.”
Costco at ¶ 11, quoting Black at 13-14. The trial court must also demonstrate that its final determination of
value is more than a mere rubber-stamping of the BOR’s determination.
Having determined that R.C. 5717.05 requires the trial court to independently determine value, the question becomes: how does the trial court demonstrate that it has in fact made an independent determination of value? In general, a trial court only “speaks through” its journal entries.
Id. at ¶ 12, quoting Hopkins v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2024-
Ohio-2265, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.).
“Moreover, it is a generally accepted principle that a trial court is not
required to explain the reasoning for its decisions or otherwise issue findings of fact
and conclusions of law unless required to do so by a rule or statute.” Costco, 2025-
Ohio-2990, at ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). See, e.g., State v. Lusane, 2018-Ohio-1775, ¶ 18-20
(8th Dist.); State v. Francis, 2004-Ohio-6894, ¶ 56. “Indeed, it has been often noted
by appellate courts that while the best practice for a trial court is to set forth their
reasoning for a ruling, the failure to provide any analysis is not in and of itself an
abuse of discretion.” Costco, 2025-Ohio-2990, at ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing Nemec v.
Morledge, 2021-Ohio-3361, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.); see also Yankovitz v. Greater
Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2023-Ohio-2584, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.) (“We strongly
encourage trial courts to explain a decision in a written opinion.”). “However, ‘in
the absence of specific requirements to the contrary, decisions as to whether to hold
a hearing and as to whether to explain reasons for a ruling are matters entrusted to
the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Id., quoting Lusane at ¶ 19. In this instant case, the trial court did issue a judgment entry to
explain its decision. In the trial court’s judgment entry, it demonstrated that the
trial court conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the appellant’s
submitted evidence. The trial court stated in part: “Appellant did not present any
written estimates or written costs of repair.” Judgment Entry No. 202119760
(Sept. 30, 2025). Further, the trial court determined that Goldshtein did not provide
evidence or proof that the action of the BOR was not performed in good faith and in
the exercise of sound judgment. Additionally, the trial court determined that
Goldshtein did not provide reliable evidence that the decision of the BOR was in
error and did not present any probative and competent evidence that would justify
the decrease in the assessed value of the home.
On the facts of this case, Goldshtein did not submit additional
evidence beyond the BOR’s record, including offering testimony from the appraiser.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court’s decision sufficiently
indicates that it made an independent determination of property value and did not
merely rubber-stamp the BOR’s decision. Goldshtein submitted an appraisal that
did not represent a complete evaluation of the property and stated that he did not
want to pay extra for a full appraisal and submitted an exterior-only appraisal.
Goldshtein did not submit photographs of the interior or any written estimate of the
costs of repairs to the property. Further, based on these facts, we conclude that the
trial court did issue a detailed analysis supporting its decision, and it was sufficient in detail to help us to determine whether the trial court has exercised its independent
judgment as required under R.C. 5717.05.
Goldshtein further contends that the trial court erred by not holding
a hearing. However, Goldshtein did not request a hearing, and the decision as to
whether to hold a hearing for a ruling is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion
of the trial court. See Costco, 2025-Ohio-2990, at ¶ 12 (8th Dist.).
Therefore, Goldshtein’s assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
___________________________ ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE
LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR