Title: South-Western City School District Board of Education v. Franklin 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 
South-Western City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 
2017-Ohio-8384.] 
 
 
 
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-8384 
SOUTH-WESTERN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 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 South-Western City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. 
Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8384.] 
Taxation—Real-property valuation—Board of Tax Appeals failed to conduct 
independent review of the evidence to determine value of subject property—
Decision reversed and cause remanded. 
(No. 2015-1191—Submitted August 29, 2017—Decided November 2, 2017.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2014-2259. 
____________________ 
KENNEDY, J. 
{¶ 1} In this appeal, appellant, Board of Education of the South-Western 
City School District (“BOE”), challenges a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals 
(“BTA”) affirming the Franklin County Board of Revision’s (“BOR’s”) reduced 
valuation of a residential property in the amount of $65,000 for tax year 2011.  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
BOE argues that the BTA failed in its duty to independently evaluate the evidence 
to determine the value of the property.  We agree and therefore vacate the BTA’s 
decision and remand this matter to the BTA.  Because this proposition of law is 
dispositive, we do not address the BOE’s additional proposition of law. 
Factual Background 
{¶ 2} The property at issue is a two-story residential property located in 
Columbus, Ohio.  The Franklin County auditor assigned a true value of $113,300 
for tax year 2011.  On April 2, 2012, the owner, appellee Nadia Ryumshin, filed a 
complaint seeking a reduction to $57,000, contending that home values in the area 
had declined.  The BOE filed a countercomplaint seeking to retain the auditor’s 
valuation. 
{¶ 3} Ryumshin and counsel for the BOE appeared at the BOR hearing.  In 
support of the requested reduction, Ryumshin presented comparable-sales 
documents that had been supplied by a real-estate agent, who did not appear at the 
hearing.  Counsel for the BOE characterized many of Ryumshin’s comparable sales 
as “HUD sales.” 
{¶ 4} Ryumshin’s son spoke on her behalf at the hearing due to a language 
barrier.  He indicated that relatives rented the property for $850 per month, which 
represents the sum of the mortgage, insurance, and tax payments on the property.  
The BOE did not submit any documentary evidence or present any witnesses. 
{¶ 5} The BOR reduced the property’s value to $65,000.  In determining 
this value, the BOR did not limit itself to the evidence presented by Ryumshin.  
Instead, the BOR considered additional evidence it obtained after the hearing that 
it used to apply sales-comparison and income approaches to the valuation. 
{¶ 6} The BOE appealed to the BTA, which held a hearing on January 7, 
2015. Ryumshin, counsel for the BOE, and counsel for the BOR appeared. 
{¶ 7} Christine Holdrieth, the supervisor of the auditor’s appraisal 
department, testified at the hearing.  She explained that she had represented the 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
auditor at the BOR hearing and had performed the bulk of the analysis for the 
BOR’s sales-comparison and income approaches to the valuation. 
{¶ 8} For the sales-comparison approach, Holdrieth explained that the BOR 
reviewed Ryumshin’s comparable-sales documents prior to the hearing and then 
obtained and reviewed additional comparable sales after the hearing.  Holdrieth 
stated that Ryumshin’s comparable sales were questionable because they “were all 
low sales,” and she explained that a broader spectrum of sales that better resembled 
the property therefore needed to be considered.  The BOR neither shared the 
additional comparables with the parties nor included them in the record transmitted 
to the BTA because they were viewed electronically and not in paper form. 
{¶ 9} For the income approach, Holdrieth explained that the process is a 
“simple mathematic[al]” exercise that involves multiplying the rental rate by the 
gross rent multiplier (“GRM”).  The GRM data, which contains information 
pertaining to neighborhood-area rents and sales, is provided to the auditor’s office 
by a contract appraisal company.  The record transmitted to the BTA did not contain 
the GRM data.  The BOE later obtained a document reflecting the GRM data relied 
on by the BOR, and it was entered into the BTA’s record. 
{¶ 10} Holdrieth explained that the BOR weighted its sales-comparison and 
income approaches in arriving at its $65,000 determination.  The BOR did not 
consider one approach more reliable than the other.  When Holdrieth was asked 
whether she could provide a specific calculation that would equal $65,000, she 
responded, “I can play math games all day.  I could do division and make it come 
out to sixty-five and give you that which is totally irrelevant.  It’s an irrelevant 
value.  But mathematically I can do it, sure.” 
{¶ 11} On June 22, 2015, the BTA issued its decision.  Although the BTA 
admonished the BOR for failing to meet “its statutory duty to create and maintain 
a record capable of being reviewed on appeal, including the evidence relied upon 
to reach its decision,” BTA No. 2014-2259, 2015 Ohio Tax LEXIS 2800, *5 (June 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
22, 2015), it upheld the BOR’s determination of value as sufficiently supported by 
the record. 
{¶ 12} The BOE has appealed. 
Analysis 
{¶ 13} In reviewing a BTA decision, we determine whether the decision is 
“reasonable and lawful.”  Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino, 90 Ohio 
St.3d 496, 497, 739 N.E.2d 783 (2000); R.C. 5717.04.  The BTA is responsible for 
determining factual issues, but we “ ‘will not hesitate to reverse a BTA decision 
that is based on an incorrect legal conclusion.’ ”  Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St.3d 
399, 2006-Ohio-5856, 856 N.E.2d 954, ¶ 14, quoting Gahanna–Jefferson Local 
School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino, 93 Ohio St.3d 231, 232, 754 N.E.2d 789 (2001). 
{¶ 14} In the present case, the BOE asserts that the BTA erred by failing to 
discharge its duty to base its decision on an independent weighing of the evidence.  
A decision of a county board of revision “should not be accorded a presumption of 
validity.”  Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 114 Ohio 
St.3d 493, 2007-Ohio-4641, 873 N.E.2d 298, ¶ 23.  It is the duty of the BTA to 
“ ‘independently weigh and evaluate all evidence properly before it’ ” in arriving 
at its own decision.  Hilliard City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of 
Revision, 128 
Ohio 
St.3d 
565, 
2011-Ohio-2258, 
949 
N.E.2d 
1, 
¶ 17, quoting Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 76 Ohio St.3d 
13, 15, 665 N.E.2d 1098 (1996).  This requires the BTA “to state what evidence it 
considered relevant in reaching its value determinations.”  Howard v. Cuyahoga 
Cty. Bd. of Revision, 37 Ohio St.3d 195, 197, 524 N.E.2d 887 (1988).  “[T]he BTA 
must engage in sufficient discussion of the evidence to permit the court on appeal 
to determine whether the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully.”  Lutheran Social 
Servs. of Cent. Ohio Village Hous., Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 150 Ohio 
St.3d 125, 2017-Ohio-900, 79 N.E.2d 541, ¶ 12. 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
{¶ 15} It is clear from the BTA’s decision that it failed to conduct an 
independent review of the evidence to determine the value of the subject property.  
See 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, ¶ 17-18 (inferring from the 
text of the BTA’s decision its failure to independently review the evidence).  
Instead, the BTA merely deferred to the BOR, treating the BOR’s assignment of 
value as presumptively valid. 
{¶ 16} The BTA found that Ryumshin had demonstrated that the initial 
assessment of the property overstated its value, but it failed to explain why it was 
persuaded by Ryumshin’s evidence.  The BTA did not address the BOE’s 
arguments that Ryumshin’s comparables were not probative of the property’s value 
and should be excluded as hearsay. 
{¶ 17} In reviewing the BOR’s value determination, the BTA stated merely, 
“[W]e find the adjustments effected by the BOR are sufficiently supported by the 
record.”  2015 Ohio Tax LEXIS 2800 at *9.  The BTA failed to address the BOE’s 
substantive challenges to the BOR’s application of the sales-comparison and 
income approaches. 
{¶ 18} The BTA discussed Ryumshin’s evidence and Holdrieth’s testimony 
as a factual narrative; it did not analyze their evidentiary weight.  The BTA’s duty 
to independently evaluate the evidence is not discharged through a mere recitation 
of that evidence.  Vandalia-Butler City Schools, 130 Ohio St.3d 291, 2011-Ohio-
5078, 958 N.E.2d 131, at ¶ 17.  The BTA’s failure to independently weigh the 
evidence is perplexing in light of Holdrieth’s response to the question whether she 
could provide specific calculations to reach the $65,000 value—that she could 
“play math games” to arrive at the BOR’s value, which was an “irrelevant” 
valuation.  We have held that the BTA acts appropriately in departing from the 
BOR’s value when that value cannot be replicated.  Sapina v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. 
of Revision, 136 Ohio St.3d 188, 2013-Ohio-3028, 992 N.E.2d 1117, ¶ 35.  Here, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
the BTA assigned a value that, according to Holdrieth, could be achieved only 
through artifice. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 19} The BTA failed to independently evaluate the evidence to determine 
the value of the subject property.  We therefore vacate the BTA’s decision and 
remand this matter to the BTA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
Decision reversed 
and cause remanded. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents, and would affirm the decision of the Board of Tax 
Appeals. 
_________________ 
 
Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., Mark H. Gillis, and Richelle L. Thoburn, 
for appellant. 
_________________