Snavely v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

Snavely, Appellee, v. Erie County Board of Revision et al., Appellants.
[Cite as Snavely v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), _____ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Taxation -- Real property valuation -- Failure to meet the burden of
proof before a board of revision does not justify dismissal of
complaint.

(No. 96-1697 -- Submitted February 25, 1997--Decided June 4,
1997.)

APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 95-K-1242.

Appellee, Thomas G. Snavely, filed a real property valuation
complaint with the Erie County Board of Revision ("BOR") seeking a
reduction in valuation for tax year 1994. In response to Snavely's
complaint, the Sandusky City School District Board of Education ("BOE")
filed a countercomplaint to affirm the Erie County Auditor's valuation.
Prior to the hearing before the BOR, Snavely's counsel provided it with a
document entitled "Owner's Opinion of Value." At the hearing before the
BOR, both Snavely and the BOE were represented by counsel; however,
neither party offered any witnesses.

The Owner's Opinion of Value contained financial data concerning
the business that occupied the real property in question. In addition, it

contained calculations of value based on the profits Snavely had received
from the business being operated on the property. The Owner's Opinion of
Value submitted to the BOR was neither signed nor verified. Counsel for
the BOE moved the BOR to dismiss Snavely's complaint for failure to
comply with certain local rules. In her oral motion to dismiss, counsel for
the BOE referred to several local rules of the BOR; however, no copies of
the local rules were included in the record.

Approximately three months after the BOR hearing, Snavely received
a form letter from the BOR dismissing his complaint. The BOR's letter
stated, "After a consideration of the information and evidence which you
presented, as well as the recommendation of the appraiser, it is the decision
of the Erie County Board of Revision that the following action take place
relative to your complaint." Thereafter the BOR letter listed four possible
choices. In this case an "X" was placed next to the word "Dismissed." No
further explanation was given for the dismissal.

Snavely filed a notice of appeal with the Board of Tax Appeals
("BTA"). The county auditor filed a motion with the BTA to affirm the
BOR's decision. One day after filing his first motion, the county auditor

2

filed an alternative motion asking that the appeal be heard on the record of
the proceedings before the BOR. Snavely responded by filing a motion to
remand to the BOR and to deny the county auditor's motion to affirm. The
parties agreed to have the matter decided by the BTA based upon the record
before the BOR.

The BTA reversed the BOR and remanded the matter to the BOR
with instructions for it to determine the value of the real property. The
county auditor and the BOR and the BOE filed a joint notice of appeal with
this court.

This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.

Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A., and Fred Siegel; and Annrita S. Johnson, for
appellee.

Teaford, Rich & Wheeler and James R. Gory, for appellants Erie
County Auditor and Board of Revision.

Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker and Karrie M. Kalail, for
appellant Sandusky City School District Board of Education.

3

Per Curiam. Appellants contend that the BTA's reversal of the BOR
decision was inconsistent with our decision in LCL Income Properties v.
Rhodes (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 652, 646 N.E.2d 1108. We disagree.
In
LCL Income Properties this court affirmed the dismissal of a real
property valuation complaint by a board of revision when no one appeared
at the hearing on behalf of the taxpayer seeking a decrease in value. Our
decision in LCL Income Properties was an extension of, and based upon,
our prior decision in Swetland Co. v. Evatt (1941), 139 Ohio St. 6, 21 O.O.
511, 37 N.E. 601, where in paragraph nine of the syllabus we held:

"A county board of revision * * * is a quasi-judicial body, and where
a taxpayer files a complaint against the assessed value of his real estate and
thereafter fails to attend a hearing of which he had notice and no evidence in
support of such complaint is offered by or on behalf of the taxpayer, a
county board of revision is justified in fixing the valuation complained of in
the amount assessed by the county auditor."
In
LCL Income Properties we approved dismissal as a sanction for
the failure to prosecute a complaint filed with a board of revision. While as
a practical matter a dismissal results in an approval of the county auditor's

4

valuation, it does not require the board of revision to consider revaluation of
the property. See Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 71
Ohio St.3d 388, 643 N.E.2d 1143, where a dismissed complaint was
counted as a filed complaint for purposes of R.C. 5715.19(A)(2).

A comparison of the facts in LCL Income Properties and the facts in
this case shows that the situations are not the same. In LCL Income
Properties, no one appeared before the board of revision on behalf of the
taxpayer seeking a reduction in valuation. In the present case, the taxpayer
was represented by counsel at the BOR hearing. In addition, a document
entitled "Owner's Opinion of Value" was presented to the BOR prior to the
hearing.
In
Amsdell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d
572, 574, 635 N.E.2d 11, this court stated that a principal owner of property
"was competent to present testimony, including his opinion of the value of
the real property," before the BTA. If an owner is competent to state his or
her opinion of value before the BTA, that owner is also competent to
present an opinion of value before a board of revision. However, in this
case the owner did not appear personally, and therefore the BOR was unable

5

to question the owner about his Owner's Opinion of Value. The inability to
question the owner would be a factor that the BOR may consider in
deciding how much weight should be accorded to the Owner's Opinion of
Value. In addition, in this case the failure of the owner to sign or verify in
writing his written opinion of value would be another factor that may be
weighed by the BOR.

Appellants further contend that R.C. 5715.13 creates a statutory
burden of proof on a complainant before a board of revision. We disagree.

R.C. 5715.13 provides that "[t]he county board of revision shall not
decrease any valuation complained of unless the party affected thereby or
his agent makes and files with the board a written application therefor,
verified by oath, showing the facts upon which it is claimed such decrease
should be made." By its terms, R.C. 5715.13 is applicable only when a
decrease in valuation is sought. Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga
Cty. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 73 O.O.2d 83, 336 N.E.2d
433.
In
Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio
St.2d 233, 235, 67 O.O.2d 296, 298, 313 N.E.2d 14, 16, we stated "[t]hat

6

full compliance with R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13 is necessary before a county
board of revision is empowered to act on the merits of a claim." We further
stated in Stanjim that the data requested by R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13 may
not represent "the sum of all information that might rightfully be considered
by a county board of revision at a hearing on an applicant's assessment
complaint." Id. at 236, 67 O.O.2d at 298, 313 N.E.2d at 16. The
requirements set forth in R.C. 5715.13 are applicable only to the written
application required to be filed by a party seeking a decrease in valuation.
Fulfillment of the requirements of R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13 merely
empowers a board of revision to hear a case. The requirements stated in
R.C. 5715.13 do not define the burden of proof before a board of revision.

A party seeking an increase or decrease in valuation bears the burden
of proof before a board of revision. Renner v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of
Revision (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 142, 572 N.E.2d 56. How a party seeking a
change in valuation attempts to meet its burden of proof before a board of
revision is a matter for that party's judgment. However, if the evidence
provided to a board of revision by a party seeking a change in valuation is
determined to be unpersuasive and/or inadmissible, then that party will

7

probably fail to meet its burden of proof. Failure to meet the burden of
proof will justify a board of revision in fixing the valuation at the amount
assessed by the county auditor. But failure of the burden of proof before a
board of revision does not justify dismissal.

We have permitted dismissal of real property valuation complaints
only in very limited circumstances. For instance, we have permitted
dismissal where the complaint is not completed properly, Stanjim, the
complaint is filed for the second time in the same triennial, without a
statutory justification, Gammarino, or there is a failure to prosecute, LCL
Income Properties. The facts presented by this case do not support
dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons the decision of the BTA is reasonable and
lawful and is therefore affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK
and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

8