[Cite as Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revison, 2013-Ohio-2892.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : JUDGES OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOLS : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J Appellant-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : -vs- : : DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD : Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 OF REVISON, ET AL. : : Appellees-Appellees : OPINION : -vs- : : CHESHIRE DEVELOPERS, LLC : : Appellee-Appellant :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, Case No. 2010-Q-1291
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 2, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant Cheshire Developers, LLC For Olentangy Board of Education
MICHAEL R. SHADE MARK H. GILLIS 41 North Sandusky Street, Suite 410 KELLEY A. GORRY P.O. Box 438 6400 Riverside Drive, Suite D Delaware, OH 43015-0438 Dublin, OH 43017
For Delaware Cty. Auditor/Bd. of Revision For Ohio Tax Commissioner
Mark W. Fowler Ohio Attorney General 140 North Sandusky Street, 3rd Floor 30 East Broad Street, 25th Floor Delaware, OH 43015 Columbus, OH 43215 Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} In March of 2009, appellant, Cheshire Developers, LLC, filed a complaint
against the valuation of two parcels located in Delaware County, seeking a reduction in
valuation for tax year 2008. Hearings before appellee, Board of Revision, were held on
October 9, 2009 and May 5, 2010. On June 10, 2010, appellee Board of Revision
granted a reduction in valuation. Appellee, Olentangy Local Schools Board of
Education, filed an appeal with the Board of Tax Appeals. A hearing was held on May
9, 2012. By decision and order entered August 21, 2012, the Board of Tax Appeals
reversed the Board of Revision and reinstated the valuations as originally set by
appellee, Delaware County Auditor.
{¶2} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶3} "THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (HEREINAFTER
'BTA') IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL BECAUSE IT ERRED BY FAILING TO
FIND THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS THE SAME AS IDENTICAL
PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEN BOTH
THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE USED
SOLELY FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES."
II
{¶4} "THE DECISION OF THE BTA IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OF VALUE SUBMITTED BY
CHESHIRE DEVELOPERS, LLC." Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 3
III
{¶5} "THE DECISION OF THE BTA IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOLS
(HEREINAFTER 'OLENTANGY'), FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE
WHATSOEVER AS TO THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY."
IV
{¶6} "THE DECISION OF THE BTA IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE OLENTANGY FAILED TO CARRY ITS BURDEN OF PROOF."
V
{¶7} "THE DECISION OF THE BTA TO REINSTATE THE DELAWARE
COUNTY AUDITOR'S INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS IS
UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THE BTA HAD NO EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE DELAWARE COUNTY AUDITOR'S VALUE."
I, II, III, IV, V
{¶8} Appellant claims the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was
unreasonable and unlawful because it failed to accept evidence of an adjacent tax
parcel, and appellee School Board failed to carry forth its burden of proof and produce
any evidence as to the value of the subject parcel. Appellant also claims the Board of
Tax Appeals erred in reinstating the Delaware County Auditor's initial valuations. We
disagree.
{¶9} This case originated as a complaint against the valuation of real property
under R.C. Chapter 5715. This court's standard of review is found in R.C. 5717.04
which states the following at paragraph eight: Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 4
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} In WJJK Investments, Inc. v. Licking County Board of Revision, 76 Ohio
St. 3d 29, 32, 1996-Ohio-437, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the following:
The BTA as the trier of fact "has wide discretion to determine the
weight given to evidence and the credibility of witnesses before it." R.R.Z.
Assoc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 201,
527 N.E.2d 874, 877. In this case the BTA reviewed the evidence
presented by WJJK and found it to be insufficient to support a lower
valuation. This court is not a " 'super' Board of Tax Appeals."
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1981),
66 Ohio St.2d 398, 400, 20 O.O.3d 349, 351, 422 N.E.2d 846, 848. In
Witt Co. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 155, 157,
573 N.E.2d 661, 663, we stated that "[a]bsent a showing of an abuse of
discretion, the BTA's determination as to the credibility of witnesses and
the weight to be given their testimony will not be reversed by this court." Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 5
{¶11} In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's
decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law
or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983).
{¶12} It is appellant's position that the evidence presented to the auditor with the
filing of the complaint was sufficient to complete its burden. Appellant argues the Board
of Tax Appeals erred in rejecting evidence of a comparison parcel.
{¶13} The parcels at issue are included in a piece of land, part of which is
plotted for the development of a dedicated public roadway. Appellant argued the value
of the dedicated public roadway portion should be zero, and presented evidence of
another parcel that also had a purposed dedicated public roadway. October 9, 2009 T.
at 27-30. The Board of Revision accepted appellant's arguments and lowered the
valuations on June 10, 2010. Appellee School Board appealed the decision to the
Board of Tax Appeals. After hearing, the Board of Tax Appeals reinstated the Delaware
County Auditor's initial valuations.
{¶14} As set forth in the decision and order entered August 21, 2012, during the
hearings before the Board of Tax Appeals, appellant made the same arguments as it
made to the Board of Revision:
At this board's hearing, Cheshire's counsel essentially reiterated
the arguments made before the board of revision. He indicated that
Cheshire's requested decreases were based on the removal of
improvement value from one parcel, and the valuation of existing and
proposed roadways on both parcels in accordance with the valuation of Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 6
another, similar parcel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revison, 2013-Ohio-2892.]
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : JUDGES OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOLS : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J Appellant-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : -vs- : : DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD : Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 OF REVISON, ET AL. : : Appellees-Appellees : OPINION : -vs- : : CHESHIRE DEVELOPERS, LLC : : Appellee-Appellant :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, Case No. 2010-Q-1291
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 2, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant Cheshire Developers, LLC For Olentangy Board of Education
MICHAEL R. SHADE MARK H. GILLIS 41 North Sandusky Street, Suite 410 KELLEY A. GORRY P.O. Box 438 6400 Riverside Drive, Suite D Delaware, OH 43015-0438 Dublin, OH 43017
For Delaware Cty. Auditor/Bd. of Revision For Ohio Tax Commissioner
Mark W. Fowler Ohio Attorney General 140 North Sandusky Street, 3rd Floor 30 East Broad Street, 25th Floor Delaware, OH 43015 Columbus, OH 43215 Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} In March of 2009, appellant, Cheshire Developers, LLC, filed a complaint
against the valuation of two parcels located in Delaware County, seeking a reduction in
valuation for tax year 2008. Hearings before appellee, Board of Revision, were held on
October 9, 2009 and May 5, 2010. On June 10, 2010, appellee Board of Revision
granted a reduction in valuation. Appellee, Olentangy Local Schools Board of
Education, filed an appeal with the Board of Tax Appeals. A hearing was held on May
9, 2012. By decision and order entered August 21, 2012, the Board of Tax Appeals
reversed the Board of Revision and reinstated the valuations as originally set by
appellee, Delaware County Auditor.
{¶2} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶3} "THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (HEREINAFTER
'BTA') IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL BECAUSE IT ERRED BY FAILING TO
FIND THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS THE SAME AS IDENTICAL
PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEN BOTH
THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE USED
SOLELY FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES."
II
{¶4} "THE DECISION OF THE BTA IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OF VALUE SUBMITTED BY
CHESHIRE DEVELOPERS, LLC." Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 3
III
{¶5} "THE DECISION OF THE BTA IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOLS
(HEREINAFTER 'OLENTANGY'), FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE
WHATSOEVER AS TO THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY."
IV
{¶6} "THE DECISION OF THE BTA IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE OLENTANGY FAILED TO CARRY ITS BURDEN OF PROOF."
V
{¶7} "THE DECISION OF THE BTA TO REINSTATE THE DELAWARE
COUNTY AUDITOR'S INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS IS
UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THE BTA HAD NO EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE DELAWARE COUNTY AUDITOR'S VALUE."
I, II, III, IV, V
{¶8} Appellant claims the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was
unreasonable and unlawful because it failed to accept evidence of an adjacent tax
parcel, and appellee School Board failed to carry forth its burden of proof and produce
any evidence as to the value of the subject parcel. Appellant also claims the Board of
Tax Appeals erred in reinstating the Delaware County Auditor's initial valuations. We
disagree.
{¶9} This case originated as a complaint against the valuation of real property
under R.C. Chapter 5715. This court's standard of review is found in R.C. 5717.04
which states the following at paragraph eight: Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 4
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} In WJJK Investments, Inc. v. Licking County Board of Revision, 76 Ohio
St. 3d 29, 32, 1996-Ohio-437, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the following:
The BTA as the trier of fact "has wide discretion to determine the
weight given to evidence and the credibility of witnesses before it." R.R.Z.
Assoc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 201,
527 N.E.2d 874, 877. In this case the BTA reviewed the evidence
presented by WJJK and found it to be insufficient to support a lower
valuation. This court is not a " 'super' Board of Tax Appeals."
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1981),
66 Ohio St.2d 398, 400, 20 O.O.3d 349, 351, 422 N.E.2d 846, 848. In
Witt Co. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 155, 157,
573 N.E.2d 661, 663, we stated that "[a]bsent a showing of an abuse of
discretion, the BTA's determination as to the credibility of witnesses and
the weight to be given their testimony will not be reversed by this court." Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 5
{¶11} In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's
decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law
or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983).
{¶12} It is appellant's position that the evidence presented to the auditor with the
filing of the complaint was sufficient to complete its burden. Appellant argues the Board
of Tax Appeals erred in rejecting evidence of a comparison parcel.
{¶13} The parcels at issue are included in a piece of land, part of which is
plotted for the development of a dedicated public roadway. Appellant argued the value
of the dedicated public roadway portion should be zero, and presented evidence of
another parcel that also had a purposed dedicated public roadway. October 9, 2009 T.
at 27-30. The Board of Revision accepted appellant's arguments and lowered the
valuations on June 10, 2010. Appellee School Board appealed the decision to the
Board of Tax Appeals. After hearing, the Board of Tax Appeals reinstated the Delaware
County Auditor's initial valuations.
{¶14} As set forth in the decision and order entered August 21, 2012, during the
hearings before the Board of Tax Appeals, appellant made the same arguments as it
made to the Board of Revision:
At this board's hearing, Cheshire's counsel essentially reiterated
the arguments made before the board of revision. He indicated that
Cheshire's requested decreases were based on the removal of
improvement value from one parcel, and the valuation of existing and
proposed roadways on both parcels in accordance with the valuation of Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 6
another, similar parcel. H.R. at 9. We find both arguments are without
merit.
{¶15} In rejecting these arguments, the Board of Tax Appeals found no value
was attributed to the improvements for tax year 2008, and rejected appellant's like and
similar property valuation comparison, quoting the following from Benit v. Delaware
County Board of Revision, BTA No. 1993-B-722 (March 18, 1994):
"The appellant has attempted to show a lower value than assessed
by the BOR. However, appellant's presentation of evidence fails to carry
the burden of proof as to what the property is actually worth. The
appellant has submitted a comparative analysis of the tax valuation of
certain neighboring land. However, we have often stated that such
information is not particularly helpful. 'Tax valuations are not sales, and a
comparative analysis thereof is always subject to the objection that the tax
valuations of the compared properties are not themselves market value.'
Henry W. Haydu v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Revision (June 18, 1993), BTA No.
1992-H-576, unreported. Paul L. and M. Courtney Caron v. Hamilton Cty.
Bd. Of Revision (August 27, 1993), BTA No. 1992-B-879, unreported." Id.
at 6.
{¶16} As noted by the Board of Tax Appeals, the mere comparison of one
parcel's valuation vis-á-vis another without more is insufficient. WJJK Investments,
supra. Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 7
{¶17} Simply stated, appellant sought to lower the valuation of its parcels using
a parcel similarly situated absent any fair market value assessment or other factors to
justify the use of the other parcel's valuation. Absent any corroborating evidence of
other like or similar factors, we concur that appellant failed to meet its burden.
{¶18} Appellant also argues it was not its burden to dispute the decision of the
Board of Revision, but it was appellee's burden which they failed to meet. We disagree.
"[A] taxpayer has the duty to prove his right to a reduction in value." Cleveland Board of
Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 68 Ohio St.3d 336, 337, 1994-Ohio-
498, quoting Zindle v. Summit County Board of Revision, 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 203
(1989).
{¶19} The methods for determining valuation may be arrived at by the market
data approach, the cost approach, or the income approach. Villa Park Ltd. v. Clark
County Board of Revision, BTA No. 90-H-558 (June 26, 1992). Appellant presented
none of the accepted approaches to the Board of Revision, but maintained the other
undeveloped purposed dedicated roadway parcel was a good measure of value. As we
noted above, no other factors were presented to substantiate the use of the other
parcel. As our brethren from the Eighth District rejected the use of surrounding
properties, we too reject appellant's arguments herein. Sherman v. Board of Tax
Appeals, 8th Dist. No. 7597, 2000 WL 263277 (March 9, 2000).
{¶20} No other valuations were presented by appellee School Board as it sought
to rely on the auditor's valuations. Appellee School Board argues it has met its burden
by disproving the validity of appellant's approach to valuation as flawed by using the
"other parcel" argument. We concur with this argument. Appellee School Board sought
the reversal of the revaluation and prayed for the original assessed value to be Delaware County, Case No. 12-CAH-09-0067 8
reinstated. Once the Board of Tax Appeals rejected appellant's valuation approach, the
only valuation left was the Delaware County Auditor's original assessment.
{¶21} Upon review, we hereby find appellee School Board met its burden and
the Board of Tax Appeals did not abuse its discretion in rejecting appellant's valuation
approach.
{¶22} Assignments of Error I, II, III, IV, and V are denied.
{¶23} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.
_______________________________
JUDGES
SGF/sg 524 [Cite as Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revison, 2013-Ohio-2892.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOLS : : Appellant-Appellee : : -vs- : : DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD : JUDGMENT ENTRY OF REVISON, ET AL. : : Appellees-Appellees : : -vs- : CASE NO. 12-CAH-09-0067 : CHESHIRE DEVELOPERS, LLC : : Appellee-Appellant :
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to
appellant.