Menlo Realty Income Props. 28, L. L.C. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Menlo Realty Income Props. 28, L. L.C. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision

120 N.E.3d 818, 2018 Ohio 4305, 155 Ohio St. 3d 258

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 25, 2018

DocketNo. 2017-0072

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 N.E.3d 818 (Menlo Realty Income Props. 28, L. L.C. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Menlo Realty Income Props. 28, L. L.C. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 120 N.E.3d 818, 2018 Ohio 4305, 155 Ohio St. 3d 258 (Ohio 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Because the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") did not fully consider the appraisal evidence presented by appellant, Menlo Realty Income Properties 28, L.L.C., we vacate the decision of the BTA and remand the cause for further proceedings on the authority of Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 150 Ohio St.3d 527, 2017-Ohio-4415, 83 N.E.3d 916, and Spirit Master Funding IX, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision , 155 Ohio St.3d 254, 2018-Ohio-4302, 120 N.E.3d 815. On remand, the parties shall not be permitted to present new evidence. See *819Bronx Park S. III Lancaster, L.L.C. v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Revision , 153 Ohio St.3d 550, 2018-Ohio-1589, 108 N.E.3d 1079, ¶ 13.

Decision vacated and cause remanded.

O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Because the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") did not fully consider the appraisal evidence presented by appellant, Menlo Realty Income Properties 28, L.L.C., we vacate the decision of the BTA and remand the cause for further proceedings on the authority of Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 150 Ohio St.3d 527, 2017-Ohio-4415, 83 N.E.3d 916, and Spirit Master Funding IX, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision , 155 Ohio St.3d 254, 2018-Ohio-4302, 120 N.E.3d 815. On remand, the parties shall not be permitted to present new evidence. See *819Bronx Park S. III Lancaster, L.L.C. v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Revision , 153 Ohio St.3d 550, 2018-Ohio-1589, 108 N.E.3d 1079, ¶ 13.

Decision vacated and cause remanded.

O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 N.E.3d 818, 2018 Ohio 4305, 155 Ohio St. 3d 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menlo-realty-income-props-28-l-lc-v-franklin-cnty-bd-of-revision-ohio-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack