Title: Ferrone v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Ferrone v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision, 105 Ohio St.3d 415 , 2005-Ohio-2284.] 
 
 
FERRONE, APPELLANT, v. MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Ferrone v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Revision,  
105 Ohio St.3d 415, 2005-Ohio-2284.] 
Taxation – Real property – Valuation – Taxation of forest land under R.C. 
5713.23 – County auditor’s valuation and calculation of tax reasonable, 
when. 
(No. 2004-0389 — Submitted April 13, 2005 — Decided May 25, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2002-A-2810 and 2003-A-1070. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} The appellant, Raymond L. Ferrone, challenges the taxable value 
assigned to his real property by the Medina County Auditor and the Medina 
County Board of Revision for tax years 1998 and 2001.  That property – 
identified in the county auditor’s records as parcel number 16-03D-14-027 – 
consists of slightly less than ten acres of land.  Ferrone’s home is located on the 
property, which also includes 7.5 acres that have been classified as “forest land” 
by the Chief of the Division of Forestry, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 
in accordance with R.C. 5713.22 to 5713.26. 
{¶ 2} For tax year 1998, the Medina County Auditor fixed the true value 
of the property at $240,660 and the taxable value at $84,240.  For tax year 2001, 
the auditor set the true value of the property at $266,460 and the taxable value at 
$93,260. 
{¶ 3} According to Ferrone, the auditor relies on improper methods to 
calculate property values on forest lands, and those improper methods, he 
contends, have caused his forest land to be overvalued and overtaxed.  Ferrone 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
presented his arguments first to the Medina County Board of Revision, which left 
unchanged the taxable value assigned to the property by the auditor.  Ferrone then 
appealed from that decision under R.C. 5717.01 to the Board of Tax Appeals 
(“BTA”).  The BTA found that Ferrone had not presented sufficient evidence – 
indeed, had not presented any evidence – to support his claim that the auditor had 
overvalued the land, and the BTA therefore determined that the taxable value of 
the property should remain unchanged from the value set by the auditor. 
{¶ 4} Ferrone has now appealed to this court.  For the reasons that 
follow, we affirm the BTA’s decision. 
{¶ 5} The supervisor of the appraisal department at the Medina County 
Auditor’s Office testified before the BTA.  That official, who is a licensed 
appraiser in the state of Ohio, explained that the auditor’s valuation of Ferrone’s 
property was based on recent sales of nearby comparable properties.  Her 
testimony is supported by exhibits presented during the hearing before the BTA.  
She also testified that the taxes imposed on Ferrone’s forest land are calculated in 
the same way as the taxes imposed on all other forest land in the county. 
{¶ 6} Ferrone, on the other hand, did not provide any evidence to the 
BTA about the value of his land.  Though Ferrone presented extensive testimony 
to the BTA about errors allegedly committed by the county auditor, the BTA gave 
“little weight” to his testimony because Ferrone offered no evidence to support a 
valuation for his property lower than the one assigned by the auditor. 
{¶ 7} “When cases are appealed from a board of revision to the BTA, the 
burden of proof is on the appellant, whether it be a taxpayer or a board of 
education, to prove its right to an increase or decrease from the value determined 
by the board of revision.”  Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin 
Cty. Bd. of Revision (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 564, 566, 740 N.E.2d 276.  And when 
the BTA is considering testimony and appraisal reports about the value of 
property, “the BTA possesses wide discretion in evaluating the weight of the 
January Term, 2005 
3 
evidence and the credibility of the witnesses that come before it.”  Fawn Lake 
Apts. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 609, 613, 710 
N.E.2d 681. 
{¶ 8} In this case, the BTA noted that it relied on the testimony 
presented by the supervisor from the county auditor’s office in determining the 
value of Ferrone’s property.  The BTA was certainly entitled to do so, for as we 
have said, the BTA “may accept all, part, or none” of a witness’s testimony.  
Simmons v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 689 
N.E.2d 22. 
{¶ 9} Once the BTA determines a value for property, as it did in this 
case, “that valuation is a finding of fact.”  Columbus City School Dist., 90 Ohio 
St.3d at 565, 740 N.E.2d 276.  That finding of fact will be undone by this court 
“only when it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is 
unreasonable or unlawful.”  Throckmorton v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision 
(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 227, 229, 661 N.E.2d 1095. 
{¶ 10} In this case, the BTA’s conclusion that the taxable value of the 
property should remain unchanged from the value set by the auditor is supported 
by the evidence, and the BTA did not abuse its discretion in reaching that 
conclusion.  As we have said before, “[i]n the absence of probative evidence of a 
lower value,” a county board of revision and the BTA “are justified in fixing the 
value at the amount assessed by the county auditor.”  Salem Med. Arts & Dev. 
Corp. v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 193, 195, 694 
N.E.2d 1324.  Because appellant Ferrone failed to carry his burden of proof on the 
issue of valuation, and because the BTA’s factual determination is supported by 
the evidence in the record, we affirm the BTA’s decision. 
{¶ 11} Ferrone presents several statutory and constitutional challenges to 
the method that the Medina County Auditor uses to calculate the value of forest 
land and the value of land on which homes are built.  Errors in the auditor’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
procedures have resulted in an improper increase in the taxable value of his 
property, Ferrone contends.  We do not agree. 
{¶ 12} Acreage designated as forest land by the Ohio Department of 
Natural Resources – because the land is “devoted exclusively to forestry or timber 
growing” – is to be taxed annually “at fifty per cent of the local tax rate upon its 
value.”  R.C. 5713.23.  According to the supervisor from the Medina County 
Auditor’s Office who testified before the BTA, Medina County actually calculates 
property taxes on forest land by first determining the value of the forest land and 
then multiplying 50 percent of that value by the local tax rate. 
{¶ 13} Though Ferrone claims otherwise, both methods in fact lead to the 
same final result.  The auditor’s decision to either multiply the full value of forest 
land by 50 percent of the local tax rate or instead to multiply 50 percent of the 
forest land’s value by 100 percent of the local tax rate does not affect the property 
owner’s tax bill, and it certainly does not affect the property’s true value.  In both 
cases, the owner of forest land pays just 50 percent of the property taxes that 
would otherwise be owed on the land were it not devoted to forestry or timber 
growing.  That is just what the General Assembly intended under R.C. 5713.23, 
which calls for forest land to be taxed at “fifty per cent of the local tax rate.” 
{¶ 14} The auditor’s method of calculating the taxes owed on forest land 
in the county is applied to all owners of those lands in the same way, according to 
testimony before the BTA, and Ferrone offered no evidence to the contrary.  
Because all similarly situated property owners are treated alike, we reject 
Ferrone’s claim that the auditor has violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal 
Protection Clause. 
{¶ 15} Under R.C. 5717.03(B), the BTA’s duty in reviewing a decision of 
a county board of revision is to “determine the taxable value of the property” 
when that value is disputed.  The BTA has done so, and the BTA’s determination 
is neither unreasonable nor unlawful. 
January Term, 2005 
5 
{¶ 16} Ferrone’s remaining constitutional claims – grounded on the 
Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Contracts 
Clause in Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, the forestry exemption 
clause in Section 36, Article II, and the uniform-rule clause in Section 2, Article 
XII – are presented in his brief in summary fashion with little or no explanation 
and no legal support.  We reject all of them, for we see no evidence that the 
auditor has violated any constitutional provision by setting the true and taxable 
values of Ferrone’s property at the amounts that the auditor, the Board of the 
Revision, and the BTA found appropriate. 
{¶ 17} For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Board of Tax 
Appeals is affirmed. 
Decision affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Raymond L. Ferrone, pro se. 
______________________