Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin 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

[Cite as Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 90 Ohio St.3d
564, 2001-Ohio-16.]
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of
Revision (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 564.]
Taxation Real property valuation -- Five parcels of real property that contain
multiple old buildings that are occupied only on the ground floor level 
Decision of Board of Tax Appeals reversed and cause remanded to Board
of Tax Appeals when not supported by sufficient probative evidence --
BTA may order hearing of additional evidence and investigation -- R.C.
5717.01.
(No. 00-236 -- Submitted November 29, 2000 -- Decided January 17, 2001.)
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 99-A-57.
_______________

Per Curiam. Appellees John J. Chester and Richard J. Solove are the
owners of five parcels of real property located at the northeast corner of Broad
and High streets in Columbus. The five parcels, 010-7497, 010-45855, 010-
42441, 010-37030, and 010-20454, contain multiple old buildings that are being
occupied only on the ground floor level. The upper floors of the buildings have
been sealed off at the direction of the Fire Marshal.

For tax year 1993, the auditor valued the five parcels at $1,401,000.
Chester and Solove filed a complaint with the Franklin County Board of Revision
("BOR"), alleging that the true value of the five individual parcels totaled
$850,000. In response, the Board of Education of the Columbus City School
District ("BOE") filed a countercomplaint alleging the value of the five parcels to
be $1,700,000.

At the start of the BOR's hearing on the valuation of the five parcels,
counsel for Chester and Solove asked the BOR to include the record from case
No. 93-576A&B, a prior hearing to value an adjacent parcel located at 8 East

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Broad Street, also owned by Chester and Solove. The owners stated that the
appraisal report introduced in the prior case covered both the five parcels and the
parcel at 8 East Broad Street and appraised them separately. Counsel for the BOE
also asked the BOR to include the record from 93-576A&B.

The only witness at the BOR hearing was the owners' appraiser, John R.
Garvin, whose restricted appraisal is included in the transcript. Garvin valued the
five parcels at $962,000.

The BOR determined the true value for the five parcels to be $630,000. In
its determination the BOR reduced the land values for all parcels, but it did not
change the valuation for any of the buildings.

The BOE appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA"), where all
parties waived an evidentiary hearing and the auditor abandoned his initial
valuation and joined with the BOR to support the BOR's reduced valuation. The
BTA found that the statutory transcript did not contain any evidence from the
prior BOR case No. 93-576A&B. No attempt was made by any of the parties to
reconstruct the record.

The BTA further found that the owners had met their burden of proof at
the BOR with their appraisal evidence and that "there is little support for the
auditor's [original] valuation in the record." The BTA rejected the BOE's
contention that the BTA should adopt Garvin's appraisal value of $962,000
because "the record before us lacks competent and probative evidence supporting
that value." The BTA found that BOR's valuation of $630,000 was the true value
of the five parcels.

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

The question before us is whether the BTA may affirm a valuation made
by a board of revision that is different from the auditor's value where the record
on appeal to the BTA contains no supporting evidence and no evidence is
introduced before the BTA.
2

January Term, 2001

When the BTA determines a value for a property, that valuation is a
finding of fact. 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, paragraph four of the
syllabus. Any finding of fact by the BTA must be supported by the evidence.
Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. Lindley (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 47, 19 O.O.3d 234, 417
N.E.2d 1257, syllabus. We also require the BTA to state what evidence it
considers relevant in reaching a value determination. Howard v. Cuyahoga Cty.
Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 195, 197, 524 N.E.2d 887, 889.

R.C. 5717.01, applicable to appeals from a board of revision to the BTA,
provides that "[t]he county board of revision shall * * * certify to the board of tax
appeals a transcript of the record of the proceedings of the county board of
revision pertaining to the original complaint, and all evidence offered in
connection therewith." After the BTA receives the transcript, there are several
different ways it can proceed. The BTA "may order the appeal to be heard on the
record and the evidence certified to it by the county board of revision, or it may
order the hearing of additional evidence, and it may make such investigation
concerning the appeal as it deems proper." Id. All parties are afforded an
opportunity to offer additional evidence before the BTA, within the limits of R.C.
5715.19(G).

The record the BTA received from the BOR in this matter contained no
testimony or evidence to support the BOR's valuation of the five parcels at
$630,000. Nor did any party request an opportunity to supplement the record at
the BTA. When the record from the board of revision is filed at the BTA, it is
open for the parties to review and verify that all the evidence offered to the board
of revision is included. If any evidence is missing from the record and it cannot
be supplied by the board of revision, any party can request the BTA to hold a
hearing where the missing evidence can be introduced, as well as other additional
evidence, within the limits of R.C. 5715.19(G).
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Here, both parties waived the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing
before the BTA. By agreeing to waive an evidentiary hearing before the BTA,
both parties agreed to have the case decided based on the record as it then existed.
Neither party can now be heard to complain that the record is incomplete.

When cases are appealed from a board of revision to the BTA, the burden
of proof is on the appellant, whether it be a taxpayer or a board of education, to
prove its right to an increase or decrease from the value determined by the board
of revision. Cincinnati School Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision
(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 325, 328, 677 N.E.2d 1197, 1200. The appellant before the
BTA must present competent and probative evidence to make its case; it is not
entitled to a reduction or an increase in valuation merely because no evidence is
presented against its claim. Hibschman v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1943), 142 Ohio
St. 47, 26 O.O. 239, 49 N.E.2d 949.

After reviewing the record and finding that the BOE had not provided the
competent and probative evidence needed to meet its burden, the BTA affirmed
the BOR's value. If the BOR had retained the auditor's original assessed
valuation, the BTA would have been justified in adopting that value. Salem Med.
Arts & Dev. Corp. v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 193,
195, 694 N.E.2d 1324, 1327. However, that was not the case. Here the value set
by the BOR was its own value, different from that assessed by the auditor.

When the BTA reviews the evidence in a case in which the statutory
transcript is the only evidence, the BTA must review the transcript and "make its
own independent judgment based on its weighing of the evidence contained in the
transcript." Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 76
Ohio St.3d 13, 15, 665 N.E.2d 1098, 1101. When the BTA reviewed the
transcript in this case, it found that "[t]here is no evidence or other information in
the statutory transcript to explain the action taken by the BOR." By affirming the
4

January Term, 2001
BOR's valuation, the BTA affirmed a valuation that was not supported by any
evidence.

The duty of the BTA on an appeal from a board of revision is set forth in
R.C. 5717.03, which provides that "the board of tax appeals shall determine the
taxable value of the property whose valuation * * * is complained of." Therefore,
in an appeal from a board of revision it is the BTA's duty "is to establish the
taxable value of the property." Columbus Bd. of Edn., supra, 76 Ohio St.3d at 15,
665 N.E.2d at 1101. However, in this matter the BTA stated that it had no
competent and probative evidence on which to base its determination. The BTA
is not without the statutory authority to resolve the issue presented in this appeal.
R.C. 5717.01 provides that the BTA "may order the hearing of additional
evidence, and it may make such investigation concerning the appeal as it deems
proper."

We cannot affirm a determination of value by the BTA that is not
supported by sufficient probative evidence. On remand, the BTA is to take
whatever action it deems necessary in order to determine the valuation of the
parcels of property at issue. The valuation determined by the BTA must be
supported by competent and probative evidence. Without some evidence of
record, we are unable to determine whether the decision of the BTA is reasonable
and lawful.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the BTA is
reversed, and the cause is remanded to the BTA for further consideration in
conformity with this opinion.
Decision reversed
and cause remanded.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
__________________
5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Because I
agree that the board of education failed to sustain its burden of proof on appeal
from the BOR, I would affirm the decision of the BTA.

The board of education argued before the BTA that the BOR's decrease in
the valuation of the property was not supported by substantial, credible evidence.
For the BTA to evaluate the board's proposition, the BTA had to review the
transcript, weigh the evidence within it, and make its own independent judgment.
In order to do so, the BTA needed the full and complete record of proceedings
before the BOR. The board of education, as the appellant, was required to
provide the BTA with the complete record in order to demonstrate the lack of
evidence to support the BOR's valuation. However, the board did not provide the
BTA with a complete copy of the record before the BOR.

In its opinion, the BTA noted a direction in the transcript to "see [case
No.] 93-576 for evidence" in the BOR's explanation of the reasoning behind the
valuation assigned to the subject property. It is undisputed that the appellant did
not submit the record in case No. 93-576 to supplement the transcript before the
BTA and made no effort to do so. As the majority notes, the burden before the
BTA was on the board of education to prove its case by competent and probative
evidence. The board of education did not do so. Instead the board of education
attempted to shift the burden of proof to appellees to prove the opposite, that the
BOR had acted in accordance with the evidence. The majority appears likewise
to shift the burden to appellees. The majority notes that neither party here
attempted to reconstruct the record or asked for an evidentiary hearing.
Nevertheless, although both parties are permitted to verify that all evidence is
filed with the BTA, and both parties may request a hearing to introduce any
missing evidence, the burden remains on the party who is challenging the BOR's
valuation to provide the necessary evidence to prove that the BOR's valuation
was not supported by substantial, reliable evidence. Neither party may now
6

January Term, 2001
complain about an incomplete record; however, appellees correctly contend that
the board of education failed to sustain its burden of proof before the BTA.

The board of education also argued that the BTA should increase the value
of the property. However, the board did not provide any evidence of the claimed
value of the property. This court has repeatedly held that the party seeking a
change in valuation must provide evidence of the claimed value. Cincinnati
School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d
325, 677 N.E.2d 1197. Where "there is no evidence from which the BTA can
independently determine value, it may approve the board of revision's valuation,
without the board of revision's presenting any evidence." Simmons v. Cuyahoga
Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 47, 49, 689 N.E.2d 22, 24. In the
absence of a complete transcript, the BTA correctly presumed the regularity of the
proceedings below and the validity of the BOR's findings. Consequently, I
believe the BTA correctly affirmed the valuation determined by the BOR.

DOUGLAS and PFEIFER, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
____________________

Teaford, Rich, Crites & Wesp, Jeffrey A. Rich, Mark H. Gillis and James
R. Gorry, for appellant.

Ronald J. O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, Paul M. Stickel
and Jeffrey L. Appel, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellees Franklin
County Board of Revision and Franklin County Auditor.

Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A., and Annrita S. Johnson, for appellees John J.
Chester and Richard J. Solove.
__________________
7