Case Title: Orange City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

Citation: 1996-Ohio-282

Docket Number: 19950023

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-02-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Board of Education for Orange City School District, Appellee, v. Cuyahoga 
County Board of Revision, Appellee; Sherwin-Williams Company, 
Appellant. 
[Cite as Orange City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 
Revision (1996), ______ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
Taxation -- Real property valuation -- Board of Tax Appeals has 
discretion in admitting evidence, weighing it, and granting 
credibility to testimony -- Board of Tax Appeals’ decision 
affirmed by Supreme Court when it is reasonable and lawful. 
 
(No. 95-23--Submitted October 12, 1995--Decided February 7, 1996.) 
 
Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 93-K-105 and 93-K-106. 
 
The Sherwin-Williams Company, appellant, owns real property at 
26300 Fargo Avenue in Bedford Heights.  It filed a complaint with the 
Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (“BOR”), appellee, which, as amended, 
sought to decrease the true value of this property for tax year 1991 from 
$4,550,000 to $3,540,000. 
 
The Board of Education for the Orange City School District (“BOE”), 
appellee, filed a complaint in response to Sherwin-Williams’s complaint.  In 
this complaint, the BOE sought to preserve the value of the property as listed 
2 
by the Cuyahoga County Auditor.  The BOR, nevertheless, determined the 
true value to be $4,100,000.  The BOE appealed this decision to the Board of 
Tax Appeals (“BTA”). 
 
At the BTA, the BOE presented the expert appraisal testimony of 
Richard P. Van Curen.  Van Curen testified that the true value of the property 
was $4,750,000.  In Van Curen’s report, he certified that his assistant, David 
E. Walter “provided significant professional assistance” to Van Curen.  
Sherwin-Williams questioned Van Curen vigorously on this point. 
 
Van Curen testified that Walter worked on market data and on 
descriptions of the property and neighborhood.  In these tasks, Walter 
verified some of the market data information and measured distances from 
the property to the freeway access.  Van Curen testified that he could not 
distinguish Walter’s work product from his own. 
 
Sherwin-Williams presented the expert appraisal testimony of Paul H. 
Ballou.  Ballou testified that the true value of the property was $3,540,000.  
He offered as “an excellent comparable” sale the sale of the property at 
25000 Miles Road in Bedford Heights.  The sale occurred on July 19, 1993, 
two and a half years after the tax lien date.  The property was approximately 
3 
the size, and within a mile, of the subject property.  Ballou adjusted the sale 
for its difference in size and location of the subject, but not as to time from 
the tax lien date. 
 
Both appraisers testified that the sale was beyond the time that they 
would normally consider as closely comparable in time.  Van Curen refused 
to include the sale in his analysis; Ballou, on the other hand, did, though in a 
supplement prepared after his initial report. 
 
After describing the property and each appraiser’s report, the BTA 
selected Van Curen’s comparable property analysis as the best indication of 
value.  It found the properties he chose for comparison to be more like the 
subject and to require less subjective adjustment.  The BTA rejected Sherwin-
Williams’s criticism of Van Curen’s reliance upon office staff to perform 
certain tasks for the appraisal.  It accepted his testimony that he had reviewed 
the information provided and that the opinion of value offered was his own.  
The BTA, furthermore, approved of Van Curen’s rejection of the July 1993 
sale.  The BTA found that a lack of information regarding the specific 
conditions of the sale rendered his decision reasonable.  Thus, the BTA found 
the true value of the property to be, as of January 1, 1991, $4,750,000. 
4 
 
This cause is before this court upon Sherwin-Williams’s appeal as of 
right. 
 
Kadish & Bender, Kevin M. Hinkel and David G. Lambert, for appellee 
Board of Education for the Orange City School District. 
 
Arter & Hadden and Karen Bauernschmidt; and Gerald Steltenkamp, 
for appellant. 
 
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Gregory B. Rowinski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees 
Cuyahoga County Auditor and the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision. 
 
Per Curiam.  Sherwin-Williams contends that the BTA incorrectly 
adopted an appraisal that relied on data collected and analyzed by an 
individual who did not testify and that the evidence did not comply with 
Evid.R. 703.  It also contends that the BTA improperly ignored the July 1993 
sale, which it claims is the most comparable sale in the taxing district.  We 
disagree and affirm the BTA’s decision.   
 
The BTA has discretion in admitting evidence, Ohio Turnpike 
Comm. v. Ellis (1955), 164 Ohio St. 377, 58 O.O. 179, 131 N.E. 2d 397, 
paragraph eight of the syllabus; Akron v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1966), 5 Ohio St. 
5 
2d 237, 242, 34 O.O. 2d 467, 470, 215 N.E. 2d 366, 371, weighing it, and 
granting credibility to testimony.  Witt Co. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision 
(1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 155, 573 N.E.2d 661.  Unless the BTA abuses this 
discretion, we will affirm its decision.  Webb Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of 
Revision (1995), 72 Ohio St. 3d 36, 647 N.E. 2d 162. 
 
Evid.R. 101(A) does not mention administrative agencies as forums to 
which the Rules of Evidence apply.  Indeed, the constitutional authority 
under which the rules were promulgated extends only to “rules governing 
practice and procedure in all courts of the state.”  Section 5(B), Article 4, 
Ohio Constitution.  The rules, nevertheless, may guide the BTA in 
conducting its hearings.  See Castellano v. Kosydar (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 
107, 71 O.O.2d 77, 326 N.E.2d 686.  Thus, the BTA need not comply with 
Evid.R. 703. 
 
Here, Van Curen set forth his assistant’s help and testified about it.  
Appraisers occasionally require help from office staff.  American Institute of 
Real Estate Appraisers, The Appraisal of Real Estate (9 Ed. 1987) 67.  
Sherwin-Williams had knowledge of this assistance in enough advance time 
of the hearing that it could have subpoenaed the assistant and examined him.  
6 
Furthermore, certifying that Walters assisted Van Curen in his report satisfies 
the standards of the Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Standards of 
Professional Appraisal Practice (1990), Standards Rule 2-3.  We find no 
abuse of discretion in the BTA’s accepting this evidence and crediting it as it 
did. 
 
We also find that the BTA did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 
evidence of the July 1993 sale.  The sale was outside the time limits both 
appraisers normally analyzed.  Ballou did not adjust the sale for time; in fact, 
he failed to record what specific adjustments he did make for this sale. 
 
Accordingly, we affirm the BTA’s decision because it is reasonable 
and lawful. 
Decision affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, 
JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents.