Title: Columbus City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2015-
Ohio-4837.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-4837 
COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN 
COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of 
Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4837.] 
Because the board of education did not advance its argument for setting aside the 
board of revision’s reductions at the Board of Tax Appeals, it was not 
error for the Board of Tax Appeals to retain the board of revision’s 
reduced valuations. 
(No. 2014-0721—Submitted June 9, 2015—Decided November 25, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2013-4176, 2013-4177, and  
2013-4178. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This real-property-valuation case concerns the tax-year-2010 
valuation of three two-family residential rental properties in Columbus.  Appellee 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Franklin County Board of Revision (“BOR”) approved a reduction in the 
auditor’s original valuation based upon an unspecified sales-comparison and 
income approach, neither of which is part of the record.  The Board of Tax 
Appeals (“BTA”) affirmed the reduction, and appellant, the Columbus City 
Schools Board of Education (“BOE”), has appealed.  The BOE argues that the 
BTA should not have affirmed the reduced valuation when the evidence for the 
reduction is not in the record.  Because this argument was not advanced before the 
BTA, we find that it was waived.  We therefore affirm the decision of the BTA. 
BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} On March 31, 2011, Donald Beck filed complaints against the 
auditor’s tax-year-2010 valuations of three parcels of residential property (one on 
Tulsa Drive, one on Kingshill Drive, and one on Norma Road), each improved 
with side-by-side two-family houses, which Beck for the most part rents out to 
paying tenants.1  The Franklin County Board of Revision (“BOR”) held a hearing 
on May 23, 2013, at which Beck testified and offered his comparable-sales 
evidence as to each of the properties.  In each case, the BOE filed a counter-
complaint and its counsel appeared at the hearing. 
The Tulsa Drive property 
{¶ 3} The auditor valued the property on Tulsa Drive at $153,700, and 
Beck sought a reduction to $81,066.  Beck’s evidence consisted of his testimony 
regarding the rent he received from the units in 2010 and three printouts meant to 
establish recent home sales in the vicinity.  He testified that one side of his unit 
rented for $675 and the other for $600.  The three printouts that were meant to 
establish comparables were given to Beck by a real-estate agent and were printed 
from a real-estate listing-service website.  The printouts showed sales of three 
                                                 
1 Beck also filed a complaint regarding a fourth property, and at the BOR, all four cases were 
consolidated for hearing.  The fourth property was not at issue in the BTA and is not at issue in 
this appeal.   
January Term, 2015 
 
3
nearby properties.  One sold for $74,200 in November 2009, and the comments on 
the printout indicated “TLC needed.”  A second sold for $90,000 in July 2007, 
and the printout noted that one unit had fire damage and that the property was 
sold “as is.”  A third sold in December 2009 for $79,000. 
{¶ 4} Beck admitted on cross-examination that he judged comparability 
solely from the exterior of the properties and that he had no knowledge of the 
circumstances of the sales or whether they were arm’s-length sales.  Based on 
Beck’s admissions, the BOE urged that little weight be accorded to the 
comparables. 
The Kingshill Drive property 
{¶ 5} The auditor valued the Kingshill Drive property at $153,700, and 
Beck sought a reduction to $81,066 (the valuation and requested reduction were 
the same as for the Tulsa Drive property).  Beck testified as to occupancy and 
rent:  in 2010, one side rented for $600, the other side for $700 (because it has an 
additional bedroom).  This property is located near the Tulsa Drive property, so 
Beck relied on the same three comparables to support his reduction claim, and the 
BOE again asserted that little weight should be accorded to the comparables. 
The Norma Road property 
{¶ 6} The auditor valued the Norma Road property at $149,200, and Beck 
sought a reduction to $74,666.  Beck testified that one side rented for $610 and 
the other for $625 in 2010.  Beck presented a printout from the Franklin County 
auditor’s website as evidence of a recent sale of a nearby property for $95,000.  
Also, Beck presented listing entries.  One was a bank-owned property that sold in 
October 2009 for $64,900.  Another was a HUD sale in February 2010 for 
$80,100, and a third sold in December 2009 for $79,000.  The BOE again pointed 
out Beck’s lack of knowledge concerning the arm’s-length character of the sales, 
and it urged that little weight be accorded to them. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
The opinions of value given by the owner are actually the 
opinions of an unidentified real-estate agent 
{¶ 7} Beck testified that he consulted with his real-estate agent in coming 
up with suggested values as to each of the properties. 
The BOR’s decisions 
{¶ 8} The BOR convened on July 9, 2013, and accepted the auditor’s 
recommendations for the following reductions: Tulsa Drive—reduce from 
$153,700 to $96,000; Kingshill Drive—reduce from $153,700 to $97,500; Norma 
Road—reduce from $149,200 to $101,000.  In each case, the reduction was 
ordered for three years:  2010, 2011, and 2012. 
{¶ 9} In recommending the new valuations, the auditor’s delegate stated 
that consideration was given to both “the sales comparison approach and the 
income approach,” with each being properly weighted.  But no additional 
evidence was submitted; specifically, no valuation evidence based on a sales-
comparison approach or an income approach was introduced by the county. 
The BTA’s decision 
{¶ 10} The BOE appealed to the BTA, which decided the three valuation 
matters based on the existing record.2  The BTA convened a hearing, but none of 
the parties appeared; nor did any party file a brief.  Relying on Dublin City 
Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-
Ohio-4543, 11 N.E.3d 206, the BTA affirmed the BOR’s reductions.  The BTA 
stated: The BOR “took into consideration the taxpayer’s evidence, as well as the 
information available to it, and concluded that an adjustment to value was 
warranted.”  BTA Nos. 2013-4176, 2013-4177, and 2013-4178, 2014 Ohio Tax 
LEXIS 2295, 4 (Apr. 10, 2014).  The BTA determined that the BOE’s arguments 
                                                 
2 BTA No. 2013-4176 involved the Tulsa Drive property; BTA No. 2013-4177 involved the 
Kingshill Drive property; and BTA No. 2013-4178 involved the Norma Road property. 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
for reinstating the auditor’s valuations were insufficient and that the adjustments 
made by the BOR were supported by the record. 
{¶ 11} The BOE appealed the BTA decision to this court. 
ABSENT ARGUMENTATION OR EVIDENCE FROM A BOARD OF EDUCATION, IT IS 
NOT ERROR FOR THE BTA TO RETAIN A BOARD OF REVISION’S REDUCED 
VALUATION 
The BOE waived its claim of error as appellant when it presented neither 
argument nor evidence before the BTA 
{¶ 12} The BTA relied on the rule set forth in Dublin City Schools, 139 
Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-Ohio-4543, 11 N.E.3d 206, that “when a taxpayer presents 
evidence contrary to the auditor’s valuation and no evidence is offered to support 
the auditor’s valuation, the BTA may not simply reinstate the auditor’s 
determination.”  Dublin City Schools, ¶ 17, citing Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 115 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-5237, 875 N.E.2d 
913, ¶ 11-12.  Here, the taxpayer presented evidence for a reduction, but the BOR 
neither adopted the taxpayer’s suggested valuations (which depended on the 
opinion of a real-estate agent who did not appear before the BOR), nor retained 
the auditor’s valuations.  Instead, the BOR ordered partial reductions, which the 
BOR indicated were based on “the sales comparison approach and the income 
approach,” with each being properly weighted.  But neither the BOR’s 
computation nor the evidence on which it relied was placed into the record.  On 
appeal, the BOE argues under its first and third propositions of law that the BTA 
was required to set aside the BOR’s reductions because the evidence supporting 
them was not placed into the record by the BOR. 
{¶ 13} But the BOE did not advance this argument, or any other, before 
the BTA.  The only thing that the BOE presented at the BTA was its notices of 
appeal as to the three properties, indicating its desire that the auditor’s original 
valuation be reinstated.  The BOE contends in its first proposition of law before 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
this court that “[i]f there is no evidence before the BTA from which it can 
independently determine the true value of the property, the BTA must adopt the 
county auditor’s original appraised value of the property.”  The BOE implies that 
this proposition of law is an overriding legal principle that the BTA must apply 
sua sponte.  We disagree. 
{¶ 14} “Generally, a party waives the right to appeal an issue that could 
have been but was not raised in earlier proceedings. * * *  This principle has been 
applied in appeals from administrative agencies.”  MacConnell v. Ohio Dept. of 
Commerce, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-433, 2005-Ohio-1960, ¶ 21 (when 
license applicant failed to object to evidentiary defects before the administrative 
tribunal, those defects could not be asserted as grounds for appeal).  This principle 
has been applied to board-of-revision proceedings that come before this court on 
appeal from the BTA.  See LTC Properties, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 
133 Ohio St.3d 111, 2012-Ohio-3930, 976 N.E.2d 852, ¶ 6, fn. 1; Plain Local 
Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 Ohio St.3d 230, 2011-
Ohio-3362, 957 N.E.2d 268, ¶ 20. 
{¶ 15} Because the BOE did not advance its argument for setting aside the 
BOR’s reductions at the BTA, we find that it was not error for the BTA to retain 
the BOR’s reduced valuations. 
The BOE’s claim that the BTA failed to make specific 
findings of fact in this case is not well taken 
{¶ 16} Under its second proposition of law, the BOE contends that the 
BTA must “determine the facts upon which the true value of the property must be 
based” and “set forth the relevant facts in its decision.”  We have rejected a 
similar argument in another context.  Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. 
Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2015-Ohio-3633, __ N.E.3d __, 
¶ 22-24.  In that case, the BTA relied on the only appraisal presented, and said so.  
We found no legal requirement that the BTA set forth its findings more fully 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
under the circumstances.  Here the BTA stated the rationale for its decision, and it 
did so in the context of receiving no argumentation or evidence from the BOE in 
opposition to the BOR’s determination.  We hold that under these circumstances, 
the BTA was justified in rendering its decision without offering any further 
explanation. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 17} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the BTA. 
Decision affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., and Mark Gillis, for appellant. 
_________________