Title: Dublin 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 
Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-
1940.] 
 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-1940 
DUBLIN CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE, v. FRANKLIN 
COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES; EAST BANK 
 CONDOMINIUMS II, L.L.C., APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of 
Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1940.] 
On reconsideration—Taxation—Valuation of real property—Board of Tax 
Appeals correctly rejected bulk-appraisal valuation for condominium 
units—Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully in 
reinstating county auditor’s valuations—Cause remanded to Board of Tax 
Appeals for determination of value. 
(No. 2012-1432—Submitted January 7, 2014—Decided May 15, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2009-Q-1282 through 2009-Q-1301 
and 2009-Q-1408. 
ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 
____________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
 
FRENCH, J. 
{¶ 1} East Bank Condominiums II, L.L.C. (“East Bank”) appeals the 
decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”), which reinstated the county 
auditor’s valuations for 21 condominium units owned by East Bank.  Originally, a 
majority of this court rejected the auditor’s valuations and accepted the bulk-
appraisal valuation East Bank submitted.  Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. 
Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-4543, ___ N.E.3d 
___ (“Dublin City Schools I”), ¶ 27.  Today we grant, in part, the Dublin City 
Schools Board of Education’s motion for reconsideration of our prior decision.  
We conclude that the BTA was correct in rejecting East Bank’s bulk-appraisal 
valuation for the units, but was incorrect in adopting the auditor’s valuations.  
Accordingly, we remand this matter to the BTA for an independent determination 
of value. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} This case concerns the valuation of 21 units in East Bank’s 28-unit 
condominium complex.  As of tax-lien date January 1, 2008, the 21 units were 
still under construction and unsold.  The Franklin County Auditor valued each 
unit as a separate parcel.  The aggregate value of the 21 units amounted to 
$8,139,300.  The property-record cards do not indicate, however, whether the 
auditor properly took into account the unfinished state of the units when 
determining their values, as required by Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-06(G). 
{¶ 3} East Bank filed valuation complaints, challenging the auditor’s 
assessments for each of the 21 units.  The school board filed countercomplaints, 
seeking to retain the auditor’s valuations. 
{¶ 4} At the board of revision (“BOR”) hearing, East Bank presented a 
report and testimony from appraiser Thomas Horner.  After deducting the cost of 
finishing the units, Horner opined that the condominiums would yield “gross sale 
proceeds” of $6,492,294.  Horner further determined that he had to value the units 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
in bulk, because, in his view, all 21 condominiums were a “single economic unit.”  
Accordingly, Horner discounted his figure to arrive at a “net present-value” of 
$3,100,000, which is less than 48 percent of the predicted gross sale proceeds.  
According to Horner, this number represented what a single investor would pay 
for all 21 condominiums.  The BOR adopted Horner’s $3,100,000 bulk valuation. 
{¶ 5} The school board appealed to the BTA.  The school board argued 
for adoption of the auditor’s valuations, or, in the alternative, for adoption of 
Horner’s “gross sale proceeds” value of $6,492,294.  At the BTA hearing, the 
school board did not put on any witnesses or evidence.  Instead, it focused solely 
on attacking the validity of Horner’s appraisal. 
{¶ 6} The BTA found that Horner’s bulk-appraisal method was 
improper.  Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, BTA 
Nos. 2009-Q-1282 through 2009-Q-1301 and 2009-Q-1408, 2012 WL 3166815, 
*5 (July 24, 2012).  It subsequently ordered reinstatement of the auditor’s 
valuations, which totaled $8,139,300 for the 21 units.  Id. at *6. 
{¶ 7} East Bank appealed the BTA’s decision to this court.  East Bank 
argued in part that the BTA erred by rejecting Horner’s bulk-discount 
methodology and by not valuing the condominiums as a single economic unit. 
{¶ 8} On October 16, 2013, this court issued its original decision in this 
matter, reversing the BTA.  Dublin City Schools I, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-
Ohio-4543, ___ N.E.3d ___.  We held that the BTA erred in reverting back to the 
auditor’s determinations of value.  Id. at ¶ 27.  The majority opinion then 
concluded by “adopt[ing] the only evidence of valuation contained in the record 
presented by East Bank through its expert, resulting in a valuation of $3,100,000.”  
Id.  The majority opinion did not, however, consider whether the bulk-valuation 
approach, which was used by East Bank to arrive at the $3,100,000 figure, was 
appropriate.  Id. at ¶ 27, fn. 1. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Questions Presented 
{¶ 9} The school board has moved for reconsideration.  Under 
S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02, we use our reconsideration authority to “correct decisions 
which, upon reflection, are deemed to have been made in error.”  State ex rel. 
Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council, 75 Ohio St.3d 381, 383, 662 N.E.2d 339 
(1995).  We will not, however, grant reconsideration when a movant seeks merely 
to reargue the case at hand.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(B). 
{¶ 10} The school board raises three grounds for reconsideration.  First, it 
argues that this court erred in holding that the school board had to offer additional 
evidence of value in order to meet its burden of proof at the BTA hearing.  This 
court already thoroughly considered the burden-of-proof issue in our first 
decision.  Dublin City Schools I at ¶ 14-16.  The issue was the subject of much 
discussion and debate amongst this court’s competing opinions.  See id. at ¶ 55-
59.  And all seven justices agreed, albeit for different reasons, that the school 
board needed to offer additional proof to the BTA.  Id. at ¶ 16, 58-59.  Therefore, 
the school board’s first argument does not call our attention either to an obvious 
error or an issue that this court did not consider.  Accordingly, we decline to 
reconsider our opinion as to the school board’s first claim. 
{¶ 11} Second, the school board contends that this court erred factually in 
holding that the school board did not produce any evidence of its proposed value 
at the BTA hearing.  Specifically, the school board claims that it produced 
evidence when it made an alternative argument to the BTA in support of Horner’s 
$6,492,294 “gross sale proceeds” figure.  In other words, it contends that East 
Bank’s appraisal evidence was the school board’s valuation evidence. 
{¶ 12} We are not persuaded.  Regardless of what the school board said to 
the BTA, the school board specifically argued against the $6,492,294 figure in its 
merit brief to this court.  The school board supported only the auditor’s 
valuations.  The school board cannot argue against the validity of the $6,492,294 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
figure, and then claim that this court should have considered that figure as 
evidence of value.  We therefore decline reconsideration as to the school board’s 
second claim. 
{¶ 13} Finally, the school board argues that the majority erred when it 
summarily accepted East Bank’s $3,100,000 bulk-sale valuation without 
considering the validity of that valuation.  The school board contends that we 
should have remanded this case to the BTA for an independent determination of 
value.  We agree.  Our prior decision erred when it adopted East Bank’s bulk 
valuation without first conducting any analysis as to whether that valuation was 
accurate.  This court can affirmatively accept a particular valuation only if it 
determines that the record supports that figure.  Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga 
Cty. Bd. of Revision, 115 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-5237, 875 N.E.2d 913, ¶ 15. 
{¶ 14} Similarly, this court cannot reverse the BTA without first 
analyzing whether the BTA’s decision was correct.  R.C. 5717.04.  Our appellate 
power over the BTA is statutorily based.  Id.  We may reverse a decision of the 
BTA only upon determining “that such decision of the board is unreasonable or 
unlawful.”  Id.  In this case, the BTA explicitly rejected East Bank’s $3,100,000 
valuation on the grounds that Horner’s bulk-sale appraisal was legally improper.  
2012 WL 3166815 at *5.  A majority of this court reversed the BTA and adopted 
Horner’s valuation.  Dublin City Schools I, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-4543, 
___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 27.  But the majority did so without first determining that the 
BTA acted unreasonably or unlawfully in rejecting the bulk-sale valuation.  Id.  
The majority reasoned instead that it “need not consider whether the bulk sale 
approach was appropriate in this instance.”  Id. at ¶ 27, fn. 1.  Both statute and 
precedent contradict this approach. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, 
we 
grant 
the 
school 
board’s 
motion 
for 
reconsideration in part.  We now consider whether the BTA erred in rejecting the 
bulk-sale valuation and whether remand would be appropriate. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Analysis 
A. Horner’s Bulk-Value Appraisal Was Inappropriate 
{¶ 16} Taxing authorities must value condominium units as separate 
parcels, even when those units are contained in a single complex.  R.C. 5311.11 
(“Each unit of a condominium property * * * is deemed a separate parcel for all 
purposes of taxation and assessment of real property.”)  (Emphasis added.)  
Horner’s appraisal violates this legal mandate by valuing all 21 individual parcels 
in bulk as if they were “a single economic unit.” 
{¶ 17} In Eastcreek Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 8th Dist. 
Cuyahoga Nos. 53150-53156, 1988 WL 1544 (Jan. 7, 1988), the Eight District 
Court of Appeals relied on R.C. 5311.11 in considering and invalidating a similar 
bulk appraisal.  In Eastcreek, the appellee owned 30 units in a condominium 
complex.  The owner presented evidence from an appraiser who applied “a forty 
percent discount to each unit because all of them were owned by one entity.”  Id. 
at *1.  “The rationale for this discount was that the condominiums could not be 
sold individually because of market conditions,” and could only be sold in bulk.  
Id.  The court found that this bulk-discounting method violated R.C. 5311.11.  As 
the court explained: 
 
Under the plain language of [R.C. 5311.11], each 
condominium unit is “deemed to be a separate parcel for all 
purposes of taxation and assessment of real property.”  The board’s 
use of a volume discount was based on the likelihood that all of the 
appellee’s condominiums would be sold to one buyer.  This 
method 
of 
valuation 
effectively 
treated 
the 
appellee’s 
condominiums as if they all were one parcel. Consequently, the use 
of this method of valuation was in conflict with R.C. 5311.11, and 
was unlawful. 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
 
Id. at *2. 
{¶ 18} Horner’s appraisal fails for the same reasons.  Just as in Eastcreek, 
Horner conducted a bulk valuation on the grounds that all of the condominiums 
were owned by one owner and “that owner c[ould] only sell all units at one time 
to one investor.”  Horner admittedly treated the condominiums as “a single 
economic unit.”  His methodology therefore runs afoul of R.C. 5311.11, as did the 
appraisal in Eastcreek. 
{¶ 19} East Bank relies on this court’s plurality decision in Pingue v. 
Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 87 Ohio St.3d 62, 717 N.E.2d 293 (1999), to 
support the notion that a bulk-condominium appraisal is permissible.  Pingue, 
however, is fundamentally distinguishable because it involved an actual sale of 
condominiums, not an appraisal.  And our decision made no mention of R.C. 
5311.11.  Pingue does not, therefore, support East Bank’s position. 
{¶ 20} Pingue dealt with the valuation of 44 identical condominium units.  
Id. at 62.  The property owner had purchased all 44 units for $2,530,000, or 
$57,500 per unit.  Id.  He presented uncontroverted evidence that the purchase 
was an arms-length transaction and argued that the sale price of $57,500 per unit 
should establish the taxable value for each parcel.  Id. at 63.  The BTA rejected 
the sale price and instead looked to appraisal evidence to determine the value of 
each parcel.  Id.  This court reversed the BTA.  We held that under former R.C. 
5713.03, we were required to use the allocated sale price to establish the true 
taxable value of the properties.  Id. at 64-65. 
{¶ 21} Pingue does not support the notion that the BTA can accept bulk-
appraisal evidence when determining the taxable value of condominium units.  
Pingue merely supports the notion that the law favors the use of a sale price over 
competing appraisal evidence.  In this case, there is no actual sale price to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
consider.  East Bank presented only an appraisal, and that appraisal violated R.C. 
5311.11.  Pingue is therefore inapposite. 
{¶ 22} In addition to being legally impermissible, East Bank’s appraisal 
was also inconsistent with the record.  As we previously noted, Horner testified 
that the condominiums constituted a single economic unit because East Bank 
owned all the units and could only sell them in bulk to a single investor.  He 
further implied that the highest and best use of the condominiums was as a single 
investment property, rather than individual, owner-occupied residences. 
{¶ 23} The record contradicts Horner’s conclusions.  First, despite his 
testimony, Horner’s own appraisal report lists the highest and best use of the 
properties as “[o]wner-occupied residential condominiums.”  East Bank partner 
George Babyak also confirmed that East Bank planned the condominium 
development for individual residential use.  Babyak further testified that although 
a few out-of-state developers informally approached East Bank about purchasing 
all 21 units, East Bank rejected these bulk-purchase offers, preferring to market 
and sell the condominiums individually.  By late 2011, East Bank had sold 14 of 
the 21 units.  No bulk sale ever occurred. 
{¶ 24} Horner’s appraisal method, which “results in a bulk purchase value 
and represents what the owner would sell all of the units [for] to a single 
purchaser,” is inconsistent with these facts.  The highest and best use of the 
condominiums was as owner-occupied residential units.  East Bank continuously 
marketed and sold the condominiums individually.  At no point did East Bank 
ever list the 21 units as a bulk-sale investment property.  It was therefore 
inappropriate for Horner to value the condominiums in bulk as if East Bank could 
sell them only to a single investor.  The facts do not support the appraisal’s 
“single economic unit” premise. 
{¶ 25} Finally, East Bank’s appraisal is also invalid because it does not 
comport with the statutory purposes of real-property taxation.  County auditors 
January Term, 2014 
9 
 
are charged with assessing the “true value” of real property.  R.C. 5713.01(B).  
“True value” means either the amount the property recently sold for on the open 
market or the amount of an appraisal predicting what that sale price would be.  
Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-05(A); Cummins Property Servs., L.L.C. v. Franklin 
Cty. Bd. of Revision, 117 Ohio St.3d 516, 2008-Ohio-1473, 885 N.E.2d 222, ¶ 23; 
State ex rel. Park Invest. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 175 Ohio St. 410, 412, 195 
N.E.2d 908 (1964). 
{¶ 26} East Bank’s appraisal does not assess the “true value” of the 
condominium parcels for taxation purposes.  Instead of predicting what the units 
would sell for on the open market, the appraisal predicted the units’ “net present” 
investment value.  It began by valuing the condominiums “in their present 
condition on a retail basis if sold to individuals.”  It then deducted “sales costs” 
such as commissions, legal fees, holding costs, and property taxes.  Next, it 
applied a 20 percent time-value-of-money discount to account for the absorption 
rate of the condominiums.  The appraisal’s final figure—$3,100,000—represents 
“a 48% discount from the retail price or total anticipated sales income.”  
Essentially, East Bank’s appraisal predicted actual sale prices and then discounted 
those sale prices to arrive at a cash-in-hand valuation. 
{¶ 27} The BTA was therefore correct in rejecting East Bank’s appraisal 
on the grounds that it “arrives at an investment value, rather than real market 
value.”  Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn., 2012 WL 3166815, at *4, citing M/I 
Homes of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision, BTA No. 2009-V-
3796, 2010 WL 3724159 (Sept. 21, 2010).  As the BTA pointed out, this 
methodology may have been appropriate for a financial institution making lending 
decisions, but it was not an appropriate way to appraise real property for taxation 
purposes.  2012 WL 3166815 at *5 (“while it may be true that, for purposes of 
appraising properties for financing purposes, it is appropriate to apply a bulk 
discount, the present matter concerns appraisal for tax valuation purposes”).  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
appraisal openly deviated from finding the true values, or anticipated sale prices, 
of the condominiums.  Rather, East Bank proffered an investment value that was 
significantly less than the predicted sale prices of the units.  We cannot sanction 
this approach; the law mandates that we use the predicted sale prices themselves 
as the true taxable value of the properties.  Cummins at ¶ 23; Ohio Adm.Code 
5703-25-05(A). 
{¶ 28} Finally, we acknowledge Horner’s testimony that the appraisal’s 
methodology comported with professional FIRREA1 and USPAP2 guidelines.  
Those guidelines, however, are ultimately irrelevant in this context.  Industry 
standards do not establish the legal parameters of real-property assessment for 
taxation purposes.  See, e.g., HIN, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 138 
Ohio St.3d 223, 2014-Ohio-523, 5 N.E.3d 637, ¶ 23. 
{¶ 29} For all these reasons, the BTA did not err in rejecting East Bank’s 
bulk-value-appraisal methodology in this case.  The methodology contradicted 
R.C. 5311.11, the facts of this case, and the statutory goals of real-property 
assessment. 
B. Rather Than Revert Back to the Auditor’s Valuations, the BTA Should Have 
Independently Determined the Value of the Properties 
{¶ 30} After it considered and rejected East Bank’s arguments, the BTA 
reinstated the auditor’s valuations for each parcel.  Dublin City Schools Bd. of 
Edn., 2012 WL 3166815, at *6.  In this court’s prior opinion, we held that the 
BTA erred in reverting back to the auditor’s valuations.  Dublin City Schools I, 
___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-4543, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 26.  That portion of 
our prior decision remains unchanged. 
                                                 
1 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. 
 
2 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 
January Term, 2014 
11 
 
{¶ 31} Rather than adopt the auditor’s valuations, the BTA should have 
conducted its own analysis and made an independent determination as to the 
taxable values of the properties.  See, e.g., Vandalia-Butler City Schools Bd. of 
Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 Ohio St.3d 291, 2011-Ohio-5078, 
958 N.E.2d 131, ¶ 26 (“When there is sufficient evidence to permit the BTA to 
perform an independent valuation * * * the BTA must do so”); Colonial Village, 
Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 114 Ohio St.3d 493, 2007-Ohio-4641, 
873 N.E.2d 298, ¶ 23-25.  If necessary, the BTA may order the presentation of 
additional evidence to assist with this determination.  R.C. 5717.01; Columbus 
City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 90 Ohio St.3d 564, 
567, 740 N.E.2d 276 (2001) (remanding to the BTA for an independent 
determination of value and noting that under R.C. 5717.01, the BTA “ ‘may order 
the hearing of additional evidence, and may make such investigation concerning 
the appeal as it deems proper’ ”).  Accordingly, we remand this case to the BTA 
so that it may conduct an independent valuation for the properties in question.  
See Colonial Village at ¶ 1 (ordering remand for the BTA to conduct an 
independent valuation of the property after the BTA had unlawfully upheld the 
auditor’s valuation); Vandalia-Butler at ¶ 27 (remanding because the BTA did not 
conduct an independent analysis of value). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 32} Upon partial reconsideration of our prior decision, we find that the 
BTA correctly rejected East Bank’s bulk-value appraisal for the 21 condominium 
units and we therefore affirm that portion of the BTA’s decision.  East Bank’s 
appraisal violated real-property-assessment statutes and was otherwise 
unsupported by the facts in the record.  The BTA erred, however, in reverting 
back to the auditor’s determinations of value.  The BTA should have 
independently determined the taxable values of the 21 properties in question.  We 
remand this case to the BTA so that it may perform that independent valuation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
Motion for reconsideration granted in part, 
decision affirmed in part 
and reversed in part, 
and cause remanded. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LANZINGER and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent in part. 
____________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting in part. 
{¶ 33} I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reconsider 
whether the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) erred in rejecting the bulk sale 
valuation and to remand the matter to the BTA for an independent determination 
of value.  Here, East Bank presented expert evidence of a $3,100,000 valuation, 
and the Dublin City Schools Board of Education failed to present any evidence 
supporting a different valuation and thus failed to meet its burden of proof on 
appeal to the BTA.  Moreover, because evidence in the record negated the 
auditor’s valuation of the property, the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully 
by reverting to that valuation instead of conducting its own independent valuation 
based upon the evidence in the record.  Accordingly, I would adopt East Bank’s 
evidence and establish the 2008 valuation as $3,100,000. 
Factual Background 
{¶ 34} This case involves the property valuation of 21 condominium units 
that remained unfinished to varying degrees as of the 2008 tax lien date.  The 
Franklin County auditor assessed the true value of each of the 21 units and 
determined that the aggregate value of the units for the tax year 2008 was 
$8,139,300.  East Bank filed complaints with the board of revision challenging 
the auditor’s valuation of the property, and the board of education filed 
countercomplaints seeking retention of the auditor’s valuation. 
January Term, 2014 
13 
 
{¶ 35} At the board of revision hearing, the only evidence regarding 
valuation came from East Bank.  In addition to the testimony of East Bank’s 
managing partner, East Bank presented the testimony and appraisal report of 
Thomas Horner, who opined that the 21 units had a “net present market value” or 
“as-is value” of $3,100,000.  To arrive at this value, Horner conducted a 
comparable sales analysis and then deducted the estimated cost to finish the 
remaining units.  This analysis yielded “gross sale proceeds” of $6,492,294.  
Because he considered the 21 units as a “single economic unit” due to the facts 
that they are “owned by one owner” and “[t]hat owner can only sell all units at 
one time to one investor,” he applied a “bulk discount” to arrive at an estimated 
value of $3,100,000. 
{¶ 36} Although counsel for the school board cross-examined East Bank’s 
managing partner, the school board did not present any witnesses or additional 
evidence regarding the value of the property at the board of revision hearing. 
{¶ 37} The board of revision adopted Horner’s valuation of $3,100,000 as 
the total fair market value for the 21 units, noting, “We were given no additional 
information on behalf of the county complainant school board in this matter, and 
* * * we recognize Mr. Horner as being an expert in the area of real estate 
appraisal.” 
{¶ 38} The school board appealed the board of revision’s decision to the 
BTA.  At the BTA hearing, however, the school board failed to present any 
witnesses or any evidence supporting its valuation or the auditor’s valuation.  East 
Bank presented the testimony of its managing partner and Horner, who offered 
additional data from condominium sales occurring after the tax lien date and 
retrospectively concluded that a revised cash flow analysis yielded a value of 
$2,900,000. 
{¶ 39} After its review, the BTA reversed the board of revision’s 
adjustments and reinstated the auditor’s valuation of the 21 units, determining that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
Horner’s use of the bulk discount was improper and concluding that East Bank 
“failed to present competent and probative evidence to either this board or the 
BOR in support of its requested decreases in value.”  Dublin City Schools Bd. of 
Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, BTA Nos. 2009-Q-1282 through 2009-Q-
1301 and 2009-Q-1408, 2012 WL 3166815, *6 (July 24, 2012). 
Dublin City Schools I 
{¶ 40} In our prior decision, we recognized that “[w]hen a party appeals a 
board of revision’s decision to the BTA, the appellant, whether it be a taxpayer or 
a board of education, has the burden to prove its right to a reduction or increase in 
the board of revision’s determination of value.”  Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. 
v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, __ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-4543, ___ N.E.3d 
___, ¶ 15  (“Dublin City Schools I”), citing Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of 
Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 90 Ohio St.3d 564, 566, 740 N.E.2d 276 
(2001).  We further explained that when the board of revision adopted East 
Bank’s valuation, the burden of presenting “competent and probative evidence” 
supporting a different valuation shifted to the board of education on appeal to the 
BTA.  Id. at ¶ 16.  However, we determined that the board of education failed to 
meet its burden in this case, because it did not present any evidence to support its 
own valuation or the auditor’s valuation.  Id. 
{¶ 41} Moreover, we determined that “the BTA’s reinstatement of the 
auditor’s valuation was ‘not justified, because the taxpayer had presented 
evidence contrary to the auditor’s determination to the board of revision.’ ”  Id. at 
¶ 21, quoting Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-5237, 875 N.E.2d 913, ¶ 12.  Specifically, we noted that 
“there is no evidence indicating that the auditor accounted for the unfinished state 
of the units or the units’ depreciation in value due to market conditions, and the 
historical sales evidence provided by East Bank further contradicts the auditor’s 
valuation.”  Id.  Thus, we concluded that “[w]hen confronted with such clear 
January Term, 2014 
15 
 
evidence negating the auditor’s valuation, the BTA acted unreasonably and 
unlawfully in adopting the auditor’s valuation rather than determining the taxable 
value of the property.”  Id. at ¶ 26. 
{¶ 42} Determining that the school board did not present any evidence 
before the board of revision or the BTA, that the evidence in the record negated 
the auditor’s valuation, and that the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully in 
failing to conduct its own independent valuation despite sufficient evidence in the 
record to do so, we reversed the decision of the BTA and established the 2008 
valuation as $3,100,000 in accordance with the only evidence of valuation 
contained in the record as presented by East Bank’s expert.  Id. at ¶ 27.  We 
further explained, “We need not consider whether the bulk sale approach was 
appropriate in this instance because we determine that the BTA acted 
unreasonably and unlawfully in not conducting its own independent valuation of 
the property taking into account the unfinished state of some, if not all, of the 
units, the depreciation in value, and the sales history.”  Id. at fn. 1. 
Reconsideration 
{¶ 43} Instead of determining whether the BTA erred in rejecting the bulk 
sale valuation and remanding the cause, I would reinstate the valuation of 
$3,100,000 based upon East Bank’s evidence of value and the board of 
education’s failure to present any evidence supporting a different valuation. 
{¶ 44} In Bedford, 115 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-5237, 875 N.E.2d 913, 
a case involving the valuation of an improved parcel of land that was one of 
several parcels in a strip mall, id. at ¶ 1, we concluded that the BTA’s 
reinstatement of the auditor’s valuation was not justified, because the property 
owner presented evidence contradicting the auditor’s determination to the board 
of revision and the school board’s evidence before the BTA “did not amount to 
independent evidence of value that would undermine the BOR’s determination” 
nor did it “support reinstating the auditor’s valuation.”  Id. at ¶ 12-13.  We further 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
 
explained that we did “not need to remand the cause to the BTA, because the 
BOR’s determination comports with the evidence in the record.”  Id. at ¶ 15. 
{¶ 45} Similarly, in my view, we do not need to remand this matter to the 
BTA, because East Bank provided expert evidence supporting the value of 
$3,100,000 and the school board had the opportunity—and the burden—to present 
evidence supporting a different valuation on appeal to the BTA but failed to do 
so.  Considering that the parties had “ample opportunity to present evidence,” 
they should not be given another chance to present additional evidence on 
remand.  Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 
124 Ohio St.3d 27, 2009-Ohio-5932, 918 N.E.2d 972, ¶ 34 (vacating the BTA’s 
decision and remanding for a determination whether the sale was “recent” in light 
of the entire record but ordering that “the BTA shall not take additional evidence 
on remand” as “the parties have had ample opportunity to present evidence”); see 
generally HealthSouth Corp. v. Levin, 121 Ohio St.3d 282, 2009-Ohio-584, 903 
N.E.2d 1179, ¶ 36 (vacating the BTA’s decision and remanding the case to the 
BTA for it to “complete its fact-finding” but ordering that “[b]ecause the parties 
have been afforded ample opportunity to present evidence, the BTA shall not take 
additional evidence on remand”). 
{¶ 46} Moreover, the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully in 
reinstating the auditor’s valuation, because the evidence in the record contradicted 
that valuation and there was sufficient evidence in the record from which the BTA 
could independently determine value.  Dublin City Schools I, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 
2013-Ohio-4543, ___ N.E.2d ___, at ¶ 21, 26.  The BTA should have conducted 
an independent determination of value based on the evidence in the record in the 
first instance, and for that reason I dissent from the majority’s decision to 
“remand this case to the BTA so that it may conduct an independent valuation for 
the properties in question.”  Majority opinion at ¶ 31.  A remand in this situation 
January Term, 2014 
17 
 
prolongs even further the determination of value in a case involving a 2008 tax 
lien date. 
{¶ 47} Accordingly, I would reverse the determination of the BTA and, in 
light of the school board’s failure to satisfy its burden and provide evidence 
supporting a different valuation, I would establish the 2008 valuation at 
$3,100,000 in accordance with the evidence presented in this case. 
 
PFEIFER and KENNEDY, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
____________________ 
 
Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., Mark H. Gillis, Jeffrey A. Rich, and 
Karol C. Fox., for appellee Dublin City Schools Board of Education. 
 
Zeiger, Tigges & Little, L.L.P., Marion H. Little Jr., and Matthew S. 
Zeiger, for appellant. 
_________________________