Case Title: Notestine Manor, Inc. v. Logan County Board of Revision

Citation: 2018-Ohio-2

Docket Number: 2015-0791

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Notestine Manor, Inc. v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2 
NOTESTINE MANOR, INC., APPELLEE, v. LOGAN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION 
ET AL., APPELLANTS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Notestine Manor, Inc. v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip 
Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2.] 
Taxation—Property—Valuation—Government-subsidized low-income housing 
under federal “Section 202” program—Preference for market-rent 
approach over contract-rent approach is presumptive, but not conclusive—
Valuation method must account for affirmative value of government 
subsidies—Contract-rent approach is appropriate when contract rents do 
not exceed generally available market rents. 
(No. 2015-0791—Submitted October 17, 2017—Decided January 2, 2018.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2014-2543. 
____________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This appeal involves the tax valuation of government-subsidized low-
income housing under the federal Section 202 program.  Appellants, the Logan 
County auditor and the Logan County Board of Revision (“BOR”) (collectively, 
“the county”), valued the property for tax year 2013 at $811,120, but the Board of 
Tax Appeals (“BTA”) adopted the opinion of the property owner’s appraiser, who 
valued the property at $75,000. 
{¶ 2} On appeal, the county contends that the BTA’s decision is contrary to 
our decision in Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 
151 Ohio St.3d 12, 2017-Ohio-2734, 85 N.E.3d 694, because the BTA improperly 
relied upon an appraisal that used below-market contract rents rather than market 
rents.  The county also calls for us to clarify or overrule Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. 
Partnership v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Revision, 121 Ohio St.3d 175, 2009-Ohio-762, 
902 N.E.2d 984.  We disagree with the county’s position and therefore affirm the 
BTA’s decision. 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 3} At issue is an 11-unit residential rental property developed as low-
income housing under Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, codified at 12 
U.S.C. 1701q. The property is titled to appellee, Notestine Manor, Inc., a nonprofit 
corporation with 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) status as a charitable institution. 
{¶ 4} Section 202 provides assistance in the form of a “capital advance” 
from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) 
to build rental housing for very low-income elderly individuals.  12 U.S.C. 
1701q(c)(1); Charles L. Edson, Affordable Housing—An Intimate History, Journal 
of Affordable Hous. & Community Dev.L. 193, 198-199 (Winter 2011).  
Notestine’s president, Robert Bender, testified that the construction costs for the 
subject property were about $1.5 million, and the federal capital advance was about 
$1.3 million. 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
{¶ 5} The Section 202 program also provides for a “project rental 
assistance” contract, or PRAC, which sets forth the rights and duties of the owner 
and HUD with respect to the project.  12 U.S.C. 1701q(c)(2); 24 C.F.R. 891.105.  
The rent to be paid by eligible tenants is strictly limited and is tied to the 
individual’s income.  12 U.S.C. 1701q(c)(3).  The PRAC for Notestine covers all 
11 units and requires tenants to be at least 62 years old and have income under 50 
percent of the area median income.  Bender testified that the rent level dictated by 
HUD for Notestine was $407 per month, including utilities, with any overage 
payable to HUD.  Notestine’s tenants pay up to 30 percent of their adjusted gross 
income on rent, with HUD subsidizing any difference. 
{¶ 6} A “Capital Advance Program Use Agreement” and a “Capital 
Advance Program Regulatory Agreement” are recorded in the property’s chain of 
title.  The agreements detail the overriding control that HUD exercises over 
Notestine’s use of the property.  The use and/or regulatory agreements provide: 
 HUD is “is possessed of an interest in the above described Project such 
that the Owner shall remain seized of the title to said property and 
refrain from transferring, conveying, assigning, leasing, mortgaging, 
pledging, or otherwise encumbering or permitting or suffering any 
transfer, conveyance, assignment, lease, mortgage, pledge or other 
encumbrance of said property or any part thereof without the release of 
said covenants by HUD.” 
 The term of the Capital Advance Program Use Agreement is “not less 
than 40 years from June 1, 2013, unless otherwise approved by HUD.” 
 Tenancy is limited by Section 202 to low-income elderly tenants. 
 No changes in Notestine’s bylaws or articles of incorporation may occur 
without HUD approval, nor can any person associated with Notestine 
have any interest in any of Notestine’s contracts. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
 All project income must be deposited in a reserve fund. 
 Rents for Notestine Manor were fixed at $407 per month.  Although 
Notestine could petition HUD for a rent increase based on increased 
expenses, HUD would never grant an increase that would show a 
monthly surplus of more than $1,000 
COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS 
{¶ 7} The auditor valued the property at $811,120 for tax year 2013, which 
was a reappraisal year in Logan County.  Notestine filed a complaint seeking a 
reduction to $165,000.  At the BOR hearing, Notestine presented the testimony of 
Robert Bender, its president, who stated that the building on the subject property 
was roughly 67 percent complete on the tax-lien date.  Notestine also presented an 
owner’s opinion of value of $165,000.  That valuation was based on an income 
approach that used actual rent and expenses.  The BOR retained the auditor’s value, 
and Notestine appealed to the BTA. 
{¶ 8} At the BTA, Notestine presented the appraisal report and testimony 
of Cynthia L. Hatton Tepe. Because of the restrictions on the property, Tepe 
rejected the cost approach.  She also rejected the sales-comparison method, due to 
a lack of sales.  Tepe performed an income-capitalization approach based on the 
actual restricted rents, and she used actual and market-comparable expenses.  Tepe 
derived a capitalization rate by using the direct-comparison, band-of-investment, 
and debt-coverage formula techniques, and applied that rate to a net-operating-
income figure.  Tepe took into account the incomplete state of the project on the 
lien date by deducting an amount of rent loss after capitalizing the income to 
$100,000.  That reduction amount was $26,862.  Thus, under her income approach, 
Tepe concluded that the value of the property was $75,000 as of January 1, 2013, 
reflecting a value of $6,818 for each of the 11 units. 
{¶ 9} After reviewing the evidence, the BTA adopted Tepe’s appraisal.  
First, the BTA rejected the county’s argument that the use restrictions were not in 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
place on the lien date.  In fact, although the actual rent amount was not finalized 
until the PRAC was signed, the use restrictions themselves were recorded on July 
26, 2012. 
{¶ 10} Second, the BTA rejected the argument that actual restricted rent 
should not be used under Alliance Towers, Ltd. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision, 37 
Ohio St.3d 16, 523 N.E.2d 826 (1988), which calls for valuing properties as if 
unencumbered.  The BTA noted as a crucial distinction that the Section 8 subsidies 
at issue for the subject properties in Alliance Towers “resulted in contract rent that 
typically exceeded the rents generally available in the market.”  BTA No. 2014-
2543, 2015 Ohio Tax LEXIS 2174, *10, citing Alliance Towers, at 21, fn. 4.  By 
contrast, “[n]othing in the record” in this case “shows that the contract rents exceed 
those generally available in the market or that the property benefits from additional 
tax incentives.”  2015 Ohio Tax LEXIS 2174, *11.  Through this analysis, the BTA 
sought to reconcile Alliance Towers with Woda Ivy Glen’s holding that 
governmentally imposed use restrictions should be taken into account when valuing 
properties subject to those restrictions.  Woda Ivy Glen, 121 Ohio St.3d 175, 2009-
Ohio-762, 902 N.E.2d 984, ¶ 23. 
{¶ 11} Third, the BTA rejected the county’s objection to the reduction 
determined by the appraiser on account of the incomplete status of the project on 
the lien date. 
{¶ 12} Based on its analysis, the BTA adopted the appraiser’s valuation of 
$75,000.  The county has appealed. 
ANALYSIS 
Standard of review 
{¶ 13} Our review of a legal issue is de novo, not deferential.  See Akron 
Centre Plaza, L.L.C. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 128 Ohio St.3d 145, 2010-
Ohio-5035, 942 N.E.2d 1054, ¶ 10.  But if we determine that there was no legal 
error, we review the BTA’s decision concerning the weighing of appraisal evidence 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.  EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-3096, 829 N.E.2d 
686, ¶ 9, 14. 
The BTA properly applied Alliance Towers and Woda Ivy Glen 
1. The case law requires a market-rent approach when federal subsidies would 
inflate the property’s value 
{¶ 14} Although the county presents six propositions of law, the essence of 
the first, second, and sixth propositions may be distilled and summarized as a single 
proposition:  Because the property at issue constitutes an apartment property built 
and operated under the auspices of HUD, the property must be valued with due 
regard for market rent and current returns on mortgages and equities.  Citing 
Alliance Towers, 37 Ohio St.3d 16, 523 N.E.2d 826, paragraph two of the syllabus, 
the county argues that the BTA’s adoption of the Tepe appraisal is an error of law, 
inasmuch as the appraisal relies on contract rent rather than market rent. 
{¶ 15} At the outset, this argument begs the question of how much “regard 
to market rent” is due under the factual circumstances. That inquiry, in turn, calls 
for close attention to Alliance Towers, which involved a consolidated disposition 
of five BTA appeals involving four different subsidized projects:  the Alliance 
Towers project, the Sunset Square project, the Murray Commons project, and the 
Staunton Commons project.  Alliance Towers resulted in a three-justice-plurality 
opinion, two syllabus paragraphs that garnered four votes each, and a judgment 
split four-to-three on three of the five appeals. 
{¶ 16} The rejection of the county appraiser’s “reversion/shelter valuation 
approach” in the two Sunset Square appeals was unanimous, however.  That 
approach was designed to “take[ ] into account that a willing buyer of subsidized 
property will consider all aspects inherent in government financial support by way 
of mortgage, contract rental, subsidies and tax savings.”  Sunset Square, Ltd. v. 
Miami Cty. Bd. of Revision, BTA No. 83-A-451, 1986 Ohio Tax LEXIS 457, *6 
January Term, 2018 
 
7
(Mar. 27, 1986), rev’d sub nom. Alliance Towers.  Because all seven justices voted 
to reverse in the Sunset Square appeals, all apparently rejected that approach, and 
the three-justice-plurality opinion explained that “tax shelter advantages” constitute 
“intangible items” that “do not make the real estate more valuable.”  Id. at 23; 
accord Woda Ivy Glen, 121 Ohio St.3d 175, 2009-Ohio-762, 902 N.E.2d 984, at  
¶ 29, fn. 4 (discerning “ample reason to disregard” the income-tax credits associated 
with the low-income-housing tax-credit project at issue, in that the credits “qualify 
as intangible interests separable from the real property”). 
{¶ 17} As to the three remaining appeals, the Alliance Towers court split 
four-to-three.  In those appeals, the distinction between the appraisals turned on use 
of the cost approach and the particular way in which competing appraisers 
developed an income approach.  The three-justice-plurality opinion broadly 
explains that in each appeal “[t]he taxpayers’ appraisers valued the property free 
and clear of any encumbrance, whereas the appraisers for the taxing authorities 
presented values of the properties as encumbered by the mortgages and restrictions 
imposed by the agreements with the federal government.”  37 Ohio St.3d at 22, 523 
N.E.2d 826. 
{¶ 18} We explained the significance of Alliance Towers in Woda Ivy Glen 
and Columbus City Schools, 151 Ohio St.3d 12, 2017-Ohio-2734, 85 N.E.3d 694.  
In Woda Ivy Glen, we considered whether the highest and best use of real estate 
should be determined by taking into account the significant tenant and rent 
restrictions recorded in the chain of title as prerequisites for the low-income-
housing tax credit (“LIHTC”).  We held that the restrictions were governmental 
restrictions on land use and that the property should therefore be valued as a low-
income-housing development. 
{¶ 19} Woda Ivy Glen, however, addressed only the proper determination 
of highest and best use; it did not involve a conflict between a contract-rent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
appraisal and a market-rent appraisal.  It therefore does not control the resolution 
of the issue presented here. 
{¶ 20} In Columbus City Schools, we confronted a BTA decision rejecting 
a market-rent appraisal of properties subject both to LIHTC and the so-called 
Section 8 program subsidies available through 42 U.S.C. 1437f.  Despite the 
appraisal’s explicit discussion of the subsidies, the BTA found that the appraisal 
directly contradicted two principles:  property valuation must disregard the 
affirmative value of government subsidies and must take into account use 
restrictions on property.  BTA No. 2011-714, 2014 Ohio Tax LEXIS 2505 (Apr. 
21, 2014), *4, rev’d, 151 Ohio St.3d 12, 2017-Ohio-2734, 85 N.E.3d 694.  The first 
principle derived from Alliance Towers; the second from Woda Ivy Glen. 
{¶ 21} The BTA opined that by using market rent, the appraiser was 
“ignor[ing] the LIHTC restrictive covenant” while also “tak[ing] into account the 
value of federal government subsidies.”  Id. at *4-5.  In reversing, we emphasized 
that under Alliance Towers, market rents (instead of contract rents) are used.  
Columbus City Schools at ¶ 16.  In that way, the “ ‘affirmative value’ ” of 
government subsidies is “adjusted out” of the property valuation. Id. at ¶ 17.  We 
attempted to correct an apparent misreading of Woda Ivy Glen that would uniformly 
preclude the use of a market-rent appraisal.  Id. at ¶ 19, 22, 24. 
2. The case law does not preclude the use of contract rent for a Section 202 
property 
{¶ 22} The BOE now reads Columbus City Schools as setting the opposite 
iron rule—that a market-rent approach is required and a contract-rent approach is 
precluded in all cases.  Although we did state that use of market rents and expenses 
constituted a “rule” to be applied when valuing low-income government housing 
generally, id. at ¶ 16, 22, the preference for market rent over contract rent is 
presumptive, not conclusive.  The guiding principle from Alliance Towers, 
articulated in Woda Ivy Glen and reiterated in Columbus City Schools, is that the 
January Term, 2018 
 
9
valuation method must account for the “affirmative value” of government 
subsidies, i.e., the tendency of government subsidies to inflate the value above what 
the market would otherwise bear.  Woda Ivy Glen, 121 Ohio St.3d 175, 2009-Ohio-
762, 902 N.E.2d 984, ¶ 28, 29; Columbus City Schools, 151 Ohio St.3d 12, 2017-
Ohio-2734, 85 N.E.3d 694, ¶ 17.  That “affirmative value should be adjusted out of 
the property valuation.”  Id.  With Section 8 rent subsidies, using market rent 
removes the affirmative value of government subsidies because the subsidies tend 
to inflate rents above market rent. 
{¶ 23} But the property at issue here, which is in the Section 202 program, 
presents a different situation.  The rents appear to be minimal, and any federal 
subsidization is strictly controlled by rigorous HUD-imposed restrictions on the 
accumulation of surpluses.  There is no evidence here that any adjustment from 
contract rent to market rent would eliminate the “affirmative value” of government 
subsidies. 
{¶ 24} In sum, the Alliance Towers premise favoring market rent is that the 
Section 8 rent subsidies may elevate rents above the general rental market.  But this 
case is distinguishable in that, as the BTA held, “[n]othing in the record * * * shows 
that the contract rents exceed those generally available in the market or that the 
property benefits from additional tax incentives.”   BTA No. 2014-2543, 2015 Ohio 
Tax LEXIS 2174, *11, citing Alliance Towers, 37 Ohio St.3d at 20, 523 N.E.2d 
826, fn. 4. 
The amendments to R.C. 5713.03 do not affect the issue in this appeal 
{¶ 25} R.C. 5713.03 governs the valuation of real estate.  Because this case 
involves tax year 2013, we apply the version of R.C. 5713.03 found in 2012 
Am.Sub.H.B. No. 487 (“H.B. 487”).  Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of 
Revision, 150 Ohio St.3d 527, 2017-Ohio-4415, 83 N.E.3d 916, ¶ 18.  That version 
of the statute calls for the auditor to determine the true value of the “fee simple 
estate, as if unencumbered.”  Under its fourth proposition of law, the county 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
contends that the “as if unencumbered” language provides an additional basis for 
disregarding the restrictive covenants in valuing the subject property.  We conclude 
that H.B. 487’s amendment to R.C. 5713.03 was not intended to alter the doctrine 
of Woda Ivy Glen. 
{¶ 26} First, it is important to acknowledge what we have already held 
concerning the H.B. 487 amendment to R.C. 5713.03.  In Terraza 8, we held that 
H.B. 487 was intended to “override” Berea City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 269, 2005-Ohio-4979, 834 N.E.2d 
782.  Terraza 8 at ¶ 26. Berea addressed “whether a property should be valued as 
if unencumbered even when it was the subject of a recent arm’s-length sale.”  
Terraza 8, ¶ 26-27.  Berea held that the sale price from a recent arm’s-length sale 
shall be the true value for taxation purposes.  Berea at ¶ 13.  In Terraza 8, we 
decided that under the H.B. 487 amendment, evidence extrinsic to the sale should 
be considered when determining whether the sale price was affected by 
encumbrances upon the property.  Id.  at ¶ 27. Under Terraza 8, a sale price of 
encumbered property is presumptive, but not conclusive, evidence of the value of 
the unencumbered fee-simple estate.  Id. at ¶ 32-33. The rebuttable nature of this 
presumption opens the door to considering appraisal evidence of the property’s 
unencumbered value.  It is crucial to note in this context that the encumbrance at 
issue in Terraza 8 was a commercial lease, not a governmentally imposed 
restriction on the use of the property. 
{¶ 27} Second, we consider whether H.B. 487 additionally intended to 
override the doctrine of Woda Ivy Glen, 121 Ohio St.3d 175, 2009-Ohio-762, 902 
N.E.2d 984,  that governmental use restrictions should be taken into account when 
valuing property consisting of federally subsidized low-income housing.  The 
county notes that H.B. 487 codifies language set forth in paragraph one of the 
syllabus of Alliance Towers by requiring the fee-simple estate to be valued as if 
unencumbered.  But even at the time that the Alliance Towers syllabus was 
January Term, 2018 
 
11 
formulated, that rule was not without exception.  Our case law acknowledged that 
zoning restrictions, which can be viewed as a type of encumbrance, should be taken 
into account in determining tax value.  Porter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 50 
Ohio St.2d 307, 364 N.E.2d 261 (1977).  See also Appraisal Institute, Dictionary 
of Real Estate Appraisal, 76 (6th Ed.2015) (“[a]ny claim or liability that affects or 
limits the title to property” is an encumbrance).  Similarly, by definition, the 
Appraisal Institute regards an appraisal of the “fee simple estate” as calling for a 
valuation of the “[a]bsolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or 
estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of 
taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.”  (Emphasis added.)  Id. at 
90.  And Ohio’s pre-H.B. 487 case law further embodies the distinction between 
private and governmental restrictions by acknowledging that although privately 
imposed restrictions are disregarded when applying the Alliance Towers syllabus, 
tax valuation should take into account the effect of “limitations caused by 
involuntary, governmental actions.”  Muirfield Assn., Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of 
Revision, 73 Ohio St.3d 710, 711, 654 N.E.2d 110 (1995). 
{¶ 28} In Woda Ivy Glen, we held that LIHTC restrictions came within the 
“governmental actions” acknowledged in Muirfield Assn., even though the LIHTC 
restrictions were arguably more voluntary than some other governmental actions.  
Id. at ¶ 23-24.  We also reconciled taking the LIHTC use restrictions into account 
when valuing the property with paragraph two of the syllabus in Alliance Towers, 
which addressed the valuation of government-subsidized properties.  Id. at ¶ 26-30. 
{¶ 29} Against this case-law background, we do not read H.B. 487’s 
enactment of “fee simple as if unencumbered” as reflecting a legislative intent to 
supersede the case law’s repeated acknowledgment that the effect of 
governmentally imposed restrictions should be taken into account when 
determining tax value.  More specifically, we do not read the H.B. 487 amendment 
to R.C. 5713.03 to override the doctrine of Woda Ivy Glen. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
Whether highly restricted low-income-housing properties should have more 
than a nominal tax value is an issue for the legislature to resolve 
{¶ 30} Under its third and fifth propositions of law, the county contends that 
the use of a contract-rent income approach in this context effectively forces the 
county to extend a local property-tax subsidy to the property at issue, a result that 
Ohio law allegedly does not authorize.  The county highlights service calls for fire 
or police services from the property that the taxes will not cover; and additionally, 
the county notes that reduced value of the property shifts taxes to other taxpayers 
by altering the reduction factors on outside levies. 
{¶ 31} We have held that despite their essentially nonprofit character and 
the charitable-minded motives behind them, Section 202 properties like that at issue 
here do not qualify for charitable-use exemption, because their primary use is 
residential.  NBC-USA Hous., Inc.―Five v. Levin, 125 Ohio St.3d 394, 2010-Ohio-
1553, 928 N.E.2d 715, ¶ 9.  In her concurring opinion in NBC-USA, Justice 
Lundberg Stratton opined that the Section 202 project should be deemed a 
charitable use.  Id. at ¶ 23 (Lundberg Stratton, J., concurring).  And it is true that a 
Section 202 project like the one at issue here is broadly analogous to public housing 
in its purpose and function.  By contrast, the later-developed Section 8 program 
involved private developers in making low-income housing available through the 
subsidization of rents to a level the market could bear.  Edson, Affordable 
Housing—An Intimate History, at 201. 
{¶ 32} Contrary to the county’s argument, however, Ohio law does not 
prohibit applying valuation principles merely because they generate a nominal 
value under these circumstances.  The county invites us to depart from Woda Ivy 
Glen for the purpose of achieving what it considers a more appropriate policy 
outcome.  We decline this invitation and adhere to our precedent, leaving the policy 
considerations to the General Assembly. 
 
 
January Term, 2018 
 
13 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 33} For the foregoing reasons, we find that the BTA acted reasonably 
and lawfully in adopting the Tepe appraisal, and we therefore affirm its decision.  
We also deny the county’s motion to remand. 
Decision affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, and FISCHER, JJ., 
concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DEWINE, J. 
_________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 34} Respectfully, I dissent. 
{¶ 35} R.C. 5713.03 as applicable here required the auditor to determine the 
true value of the fee as if the property was unencumbered.  The property 
construction costs in this case were approximately $1.5 million, and the auditor 
valued the 11-suite subsidized apartment building at $811,120.  The error in the 
Board of Tax Appeals’ conclusion valuing the property at $75,000 occurred 
because it relied on below market contract rents, not market value rents. 
{¶ 36} Accordingly, I would reverse its determination and remand the 
matter to the Board of Tax Appeals. 
 
DEWINE, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Karen H. Bauernschmidt, and 
Nicholas M.J. Ray, for appellee Notestine Manor, Inc. 
 
Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., and Kelley A. Gorry, for appellants. 
_________________