Title: Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education v. Delaware County Board 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 
Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-
8843.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-8843 
OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE, v. 
DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES; 7991 COLUMBUS 
PIKE, L.L.C., APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of 
Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8843.] 
Taxation—Real-property valuation—Board of Tax Appeals acted reasonably and 
lawfully in reversing the valuation of the board of revision—Bedford rule 
did not prevent reinstatement of the auditor’s valuation—Decision 
affirmed. 
(No. 2014-1647—Submitted June 6, 2017—Decided December 7, 2017.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2012-4855. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This real-property-valuation case involves the same property at issue 
in Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, ___ Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-8347, ___ N.E.3d ___ (“Olentangy Local Schools I”).  This 
case involves the Delaware County auditor’s tax-year-2011 valuation of the subject 
property at $1,550,000.  The owner, appellant, 7991 Columbus Pike, L.L.C., filed 
a valuation complaint, and the Delaware County Board of Revision (“BOR”) 
reduced the value to $300,000.  The Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education 
(“BOE”) appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”), which reversed the 
BOR’s decision and reinstated the auditor’s value.  The primary issue here is 
whether the BTA violated the rule stated in Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. 
Bd. of Revision, 115 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-5237, 875 N.E.2d 913, by 
reinstating the auditor’s valuation.  Because the Bedford rule did not prevent 
reinstatement of the auditor’s valuation in this case, we affirm. 
Facts and Procedural History 
{¶ 2} We provide a detailed description of the subject property in Olentangy 
Local Schools I.  In short, the property consists of the land and improvements 
retained by Columbus Pike after it sold a condominium unit to Delaware County in 
April 2009.  In Olentangy Local Schools I, we concluded that 11.997 acres were 
attributable to the subject property for tax year 2009.  ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-
Ohio-8347, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 22.  In this case, pertaining to tax year 2011, 
Columbus Pike argues that additional conveyances of condominium common 
elements reduced the subject property to 10.454 acres.  The parties do not suggest 
that the property underwent any other material changes since 2009. 
{¶ 3} After the auditor valued the subject property at $1,550,000 for tax 
year 2011, Columbus Pike filed a valuation complaint with the BOR, arguing that 
the value should be reduced to $300,000 “[t]o be consistent with” the BOR’s tax 
year 2009 decision “and with market value.”  The BOE filed a countercomplaint 
seeking to retain the auditor’s valuation. 
{¶ 4} At the BOR hearing, Columbus Pike introduced several exhibits and 
the testimony of two of its owners, Stephen D. Martin and Richard S. Langdale.  
January Term, 2017 
 
3
Martin first testified that the auditor overvalued the subject property by attributing 
11.997 acres to Columbus Pike.  He said that Columbus Pike owned only 10.454 
acres.  In an effort to prove this, Martin provided data sheets from the auditor’s 
website that listed Columbus Pike as the owner of several parcels of common 
elements.  The data sheets state that the common-element parcels were transferred 
on January 4, 2012. 
{¶ 5} Martin also provided evidence of the BOR’s tax-year-2009 decision 
that valued the subject property at $300,000.  He testified that a five-fold increase 
in value from 2009 to 2011 was not justified, because “the office market has not 
gone up.”  He explained that Columbus Pike was seeking a reduction to the BOR’s 
prior $300,000 valuation because “that’s the appropriate value” and would be 
consistent with how the auditor had valued other property under similar 
circumstances.  To further support his view that the auditor’s valuation was too 
high, Martin introduced data related to the sales of four other properties in the area.  
According to his calculations, if the per-acre price from those sales were applied to 
the subject property, its value would be between $470,294 and $1,114,177. 
{¶ 6} Langdale testified that Columbus Pike had marketed the property for 
the past four or five years and had offered to sell the property to nine different 
developers for the balance remaining on Columbus Pike’s bank mortgage (about 
$700,000).  According to Langdale, those developers all rejected Columbus Pike’s 
offers.  Langdale did not give an opinion of the property’s value. 
{¶ 7} The BOR valued the subject property at $300,000, and the BOE 
appealed to the BTA.  The parties presented no additional evidence to the BTA.  
After reviewing the evidence presented to the BOR, the BTA reversed and 
reinstated the auditor’s valuation.  The BTA found that “the record does not support 
the BOR’s decision to reduce the subject property’s value.”  BTA No. 2012-4855, 
2014 Ohio Tax LEXIS 4070, at *5 (Aug. 29, 2014).  Id.  It rejected the BOR’s 
valuation because Columbus Pike had “relied upon a prior BOR decision to reduce 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
the subject property’s value to $300,000 for tax year 2009, the second year in the 
prior interim period, unadjusted sale data, and its unsuccessful attempts to sell the 
subject property.”  Id. at *2-3.  Columbus Pike appealed to this court. 
Analysis 
{¶ 8} The BTA found that the BOR’s valuation of the subject property at 
$300,000 was not supported by the record and reinstated the auditor’s original 
valuation.  If its decision was “reasonable and lawful,” we must affirm it.  
R.C. 5717.04.  In deciding whether the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully, we 
must defer to the BTA’s findings concerning the weight of evidence, so long as 
they are supported by the record.  Olmsted Falls Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. 
of Revision, 122 Ohio St.3d 134, 2009-Ohio-2461, 909 N.E.2d 597, ¶ 27.  Questions 
of law, however, must be reviewed de novo.  Akron City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. 
v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 92, 2014-Ohio-1588, 9 N.E.3d 1004, 
¶ 10-11. 
Rejection of the BOR’s valuation 
{¶ 9} The BOE had the burden of proof as appellant before the BTA, 
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), and sought to meet its burden by attacking 
the competence and probative value of the evidence Columbus Pike had presented 
to the BOR.  The BOE thus argued that Columbus Pike, as the party seeking to 
decrease the auditor’s valuation, did not meet its burden to prove a lower value to 
the BOR.  See Snavely v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 500, 503, 678 
N.E.2d 1373 (1997).  Indeed, if Columbus Pike had failed to meet its burden with 
competent and probative evidence at the BOR, the BTA was required to reverse the 
BOR’s reduction in value.  See Columbus City School Dist. at 566-567.  In assessing 
Columbus Pike’s evidence, the BTA could not defer to the BOR’s factual findings; 
it had to “ ‘independently weigh and evaluate all evidence properly before it.’ ”  
Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 76 Ohio St.3d 13, 15, 665 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
N.E.2d 1098 (1996), quoting Black v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 16 Ohio St.3d 
11, 13, 475 N.E.2d 1264 (1985). 
{¶ 10} Columbus Pike argues that it proved a lower value with evidence 
that it owned only 10.454 acres and through the testimony and related evidence of 
its owners, Martin and Langdale.  Columbus Pike has not shown that the BTA 
unreasonably or unlawfully weighed and evaluated this evidence. 
Acreage 
{¶ 11} In its third proposition of law, Columbus Pike argues that the BTA’s 
decision was unreasonable and unlawful because it attributed 11.997 acres instead 
of 10.454 acres to the subject property.  Columbus Pike contends that the lower 
number should have been used because it had conveyed an additional 1.543 acres 
as condominium common elements between tax years 2009 and 2011. 
{¶ 12} As discussed in Olentangy Local Schools I, the county, as the sole 
condominium-unit owner, is the owner of the condominium property’s common 
elements by operation of R.C. 5311.04(A).  Olentangy Local Schools I, ___ Ohio 
St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-8347, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 21.  But here, Columbus Pike did 
not present evidence proving that it conveyed additional acreage as common 
elements before the relevant tax-lien date. 
{¶ 13} Although Martin testified that the subject property is 10.454 acres, 
no documents in evidence showed that Columbus Pike had conveyed 1.543 acres 
of its 11.997 acres as common elements as of January 1, 2011.  Indeed, the limited 
documentation of acreage transfers shows that they occurred in 2012, well after the 
tax-lien date.  And although there is a property-record card for the subject property 
showing that the parcel is 10.454 acres, it is dated March 2012.  Therefore, 
Columbus Pike has not shown that the BTA improperly attributed 1.543 acres to 
the subject property for tax year 2011. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Owner’s testimony and evidence 
{¶ 14} The BTA found that the record did not support the BOR’s reduction 
in value because Columbus Pike’s evidence consisted of only the BOR’s prior 2009 
value reduction, unadjusted sales comparisons, and unsuccessful attempts to sell 
the property.  This assessment of Columbus Pike’s evidence was reasonable and 
lawful. 
{¶ 15} Columbus Pike sought to reduce the tax-year-2011 valuation of the 
property to $300,000 based on the BOR’s decision for tax year 2009.  The BTA 
correctly disregarded that earlier valuation because it was not competent evidence 
of the property’s value.  See Olmsted Falls, 122 Ohio St.3d 134, 2009-Ohio-2461, 
909 N.E.2d 597, at ¶ 20-21.  Indeed, except when the carryover provision of R.C. 
5715.19(D) applies, it is legal error to assign value in a later tax year merely because 
that value was assigned in an earlier year, id.; see also Fogg-Akron Assoc., L.P. v. 
Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 112, 2009-Ohio-6412, 919 N.E.2d 
730, ¶ 15. 
{¶ 16} Columbus Pike also tried to undermine the auditor’s valuation by 
submitting data related to sales of four other properties in Delaware County.  
According to Martin’s calculations, these sales suggested a value of the subject 
property between $470,294 and $1,114,177.  It was reasonable for the BTA to 
conclude that this evidence was not competent appraisal evidence, because it was 
submitted through Martin, who did not purport to be a qualified expert appraiser.  
See Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 140 
Ohio St.3d 248, 2014-Ohio-3620, 17 N.E.3d 537, ¶ 19 (stating that a nonexpert 
owner usually “may not testify about comparable properties, because that testimony 
would be hearsay”). 
{¶ 17} In its fourth proposition of law, Columbus Pike argues that the BTA 
should have considered its unsuccessful marketing efforts as probative evidence 
that the property is worth less than $1,550,000.  This argument fails under our 
January Term, 2017 
 
7
decision in Gupta v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 79 Ohio St.3d 397, 683 N.E.2d 
1076 (1997), in which the property owner made the similar argument that “the BTA 
erred in giving no consideration to” failed purchase offers.  Id. at 399.  In Gupta, 
we concluded that “[t]he BTA was not required to assign any weight” to testimony 
about unaccepted offers.  Id. at 400.  Columbus Pike has not shown that the BTA 
acted unreasonably or unlawfully in according no weight to the unsuccessful 
attempts to sell the property here. 
{¶ 18} Finally, Columbus Pike argues that the BTA improperly disregarded 
the evidence presented through Martin and Langdale, claiming that it constituted 
permissible owner’s opinion of market value.  Under the owner-opinion rule, an 
owner of real property is competent to testify about the market value of the 
property, even if he or she is not qualified as an expert.  See Smith v. Padgett, 32 
Ohio St.3d 344, 347, 513 N.E.2d 737 (1987). 
{¶ 19} We hold that the owner-opinion rule does not apply to the evidence 
here, because neither Martin nor Langdale offered an opinion of the property’s 
market value.  Langdale admitted that he could not offer an opinion of value.  And 
although Martin advocated for a valuation of $300,000, saying, “[T]hat’s the 
appropriate value,” he did not expressly state a personal opinion of value and spoke 
only generally about his perceptions of prevailing office-market conditions.  The 
BTA reasonably construed his testimony as a request to reduce the valuation based 
on the BOR’s earlier reduction for tax year 2009, which was an invitation to legal 
error, not an owner’s opinion of value. 
{¶ 20} The BTA reasonably and lawfully found that the BOR’s valuation 
of the subject property at $300,000 was not supported by the evidence.  The BTA, 
therefore, was required to reverse the BOR’s valuation.  See Columbus City School 
Dist., 90 Ohio St.3d at 566-567, 740 N.E.2d 276.  The next question is whether the 
BTA properly reinstated the auditor’s valuation. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
Reinstatement of the auditor’s valuation 
{¶ 21} In its first and second propositions of law, Columbus Pike argues 
that the auditor’s valuation could not be reinstated, because the BOE presented no 
evidence to support it.  In short, Columbus Pike contends that the BTA violated the 
Bedford rule. 
{¶ 22} The Bedford rule provides that the BTA generally may not rely on 
the auditor’s original valuation as a default valuation when the board of revision 
has reduced the property’s value based on the owner’s evidence.  Dublin City 
Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 147 Ohio St.3d 38, 2016-Ohio-
3025, 59 N.E.3d 1270, ¶ 6, explaining Bedford, 115 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-
5237, 875 N.E.2d 913.  When it applies, the rule requires a board of education to 
go forward with evidence on appeal to the BTA.  Id., citing Worthington City 
Schools, 140 Ohio St.3d 248, 2014-Ohio-3620, 17 N.E.3d 537, at ¶ 41, citing 
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, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 23} As we recently explained in Dublin City Schools, 147 Ohio St.3d 38, 
2016-Ohio-3025, 59 N.E.3d 1270, the Bedford rule applies only when “the 
evidence of value that the owner presented to the board of revision was competent 
and at least minimally plausible.”  Id. at ¶ 7.  See also Columbus City Schools Bd. 
of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 144 Ohio St.3d 324, 2015-Ohio-3633, 43 
N.E.3d 387, ¶ 44 (“The BTA can override the Bedford rule and reinstate the 
auditor’s valuation when the BOR’s decision to reject the auditor’s valuation is 
completely unsupported in the record”); Worthington City Schools at ¶ 38 (“the 
Bedford rule addresses circumstances in which the board of revision relies on 
specific and plausible evidence to reach a valuation different from that originally 
found by the auditor”); Bedford at ¶ 15 ( “the BTA erred in reinstating the auditor’s 
determination of value when the taxpayer had presented sufficient evidence to the 
[board of revision] to justify the reduction the [board of revision] ordered”).  
January Term, 2017 
 
9
Moreover, the rule does not apply when the board of revision committed legal error.  
Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 148 Ohio St.3d 
700, 2016-Ohio-8375, 72 N.E.3d 637, ¶ 16-17. 
{¶ 24} The Bedford rule did not prevent the BTA from reinstating the 
auditor’s valuation here or require the BOE to affirmatively prove value, because, 
as discussed, Columbus Pike did not present competent and minimally plausible 
evidence negating the auditor’s valuation, and it improperly relied on a prior year’s 
valuation.  We therefore reject Columbus Pike’s first and second propositions of 
law. 
Decision affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., Mark H. Gillis, and Kelley A. Gorry, for 
appellee Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education. 
Manos, Martin & Pergram Co., L.P.A., and Stephen D. Martin, for 
appellant. 
_________________