Title: Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 
Ohio St.3d 157, 2005-Ohio-4385.] 
 
 
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VANDALIA-BUTLER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 
APPELLEE, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES; 
TIMBERLAKE L.P., APPELLANT. 
[Cite as Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. 
of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 157, 2005-Ohio-4385.] 
Taxation — Real property — Valuation — Burden of proving entitlement to 
reduction of value fixed by board of revision lies with party seeking 
reduction — BTA’s rejection of board of revision’s valuation not 
unreasonable, when. 
(No. 2004-0343 — Submitted July 26, 2005 — Decided September 7, 2005.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2002-V-1596. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} The appellant, Timberlake L.P., challenges the value assigned to 
its real property by the Montgomery County Auditor for tax year 2001.  The 
property — identified in the county auditor’s records as parcel number B02-006-
01-0063 — is known as the Timberlake Apartments.  A 144-unit apartment 
complex constructed in 2000 is on the property, which covers 9.215 acres of land. 
{¶ 2} For tax year 2001, the Montgomery County Auditor fixed the true 
value of the property at $5,994,310.  Timberlake asked the Montgomery County 
Board of Revision to reduce that valuation, arguing that the property was worth 
only $3,980,000 that year. 
{¶ 3} The board of revision determined that the total value of the 
property was $4,147,200, which prompted the Board of Education of the 
Vandalia-Butler City School District to file an appeal under R.C. 5717.01 with the 
Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”).  The board of education urged the BTA to set the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
value of the property at the amount originally determined by the county auditor.  
The BTA held a hearing and concluded that the county auditor’s original 
valuation of the property was in fact correct, and the BTA therefore reversed the 
decision of the board of revision and directed the county auditor to again set the 
value of the property at $5,994,310. 
{¶ 4} Timberlake has now appealed to this court.  For the reasons that 
follow, we affirm the BTA’s decision. 
{¶ 5} “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 [in] 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 
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. 
{¶ 6} In this case, the board of education argued before the BTA that the 
decision of the board of revision was not supported by any probative, competent 
evidence.  Timberlake had presented testimony before the board of revision from 
a real-property-tax consultant, and the BTA concluded in its opinion that he was 
not qualified to offer expert testimony about the property’s value. 
{¶ 7} At the hearing before the BTA itself, a state-certified real estate 
appraiser testified on behalf of Timberlake.  That appraiser — Stephen Ewan — 
calculated a value for the property under three different methods: (1) the income-
capitalization approach, which focuses on a property’s capacity to generate 
income for the owner, (2) the sales-comparison approach, which focuses on the 
prices of comparable properties that have changed hands recently, and (3) the cost 
January Term, 2005 
3 
approach, which focuses on the cost of replacing the improvements on the 
property.  Ewan relied on all three valuation methods to reach his final 
conclusion, and he appraised the property’s value at $4,000,000. 
{¶ 8} The BTA found Ewan’s opinion unconvincing.  The comparable 
properties that Ewan examined in appraising the property were nearly 30 years 
older than the Timberlake apartment project, and, according to the BTA, Ewan 
failed to make “any meaningful adjustments to the sales comparables” to account 
for their age.  The BTA also described Ewan’s cost-approach analysis as 
“circular” and characterized his income analysis as “unreliable.”  Ewan’s 
appraisal was not “probative” of the property’s value, according to the BTA, and 
the BTA found no other evidence supporting the board of revision’s decision to 
reduce the value of the property from the amount originally set by the county 
auditor.  In the absence of that evidence, the BTA reversed the board of revision’s 
decision and directed that the auditor’s original valuation be restored. 
{¶ 9} Timberlake argues in its appeal here that the BTA should not have 
ruled in the board of education’s favor, given that the board of education was the 
appellant before the BTA and presented no witnesses or other evidence at the 
BTA hearing.  To be sure, the burden of proof rested on the board of education 
before the BTA, but “[h]ow a party seeking a change in valuation attempts to 
meet its burden of proof * * * is a matter for that party’s judgment.”  Snavely v. 
Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 500, 503, 678 N.E.2d 1373.  The 
board of education could meet its burden of proof before the BTA by showing — 
through cross-examination of Timberlake’s appraiser and in a posthearing brief — 
that the board of revision had erred when it reduced the value from the amount 
first determined by the auditor. 
{¶ 10} We have explained that the BTA is entitled to “render its own 
independent decision as to the valuation of the property in issue.”  Cincinnati 
Milacron Indus., Inc. v. Brown Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 32, 33, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
517 N.E.2d 896, citing R.C. 5717.03.  “[A] determination of the true value of real 
property by a board of revision * * * is not presumptively valid.”  Amsdell v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 572, 574, 635 N.E.2d 11. 
{¶ 11} Moreover, the BTA was entitled to reject the testimony that 
Timberlake’s appraiser offered, for as we have said, the BTA “is not required to 
adopt the appraisal methodology espoused by any expert or witness.”  Hotel 
Statler v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 299, 303, 681 
N.E.2d 425.  “We will not reverse the BTA’s determination on credibility of 
witnesses and weight given to their testimony unless we find an abuse of * * * 
discretion.”  Natl. Church Residence v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1995), 73 
Ohio St.3d 397, 398, 653 N.E.2d 240.  The BTA’s decision in a valuation case 
such as this 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. 
{¶ 12} In the absence of probative evidence supporting the reduction in 
value ordered by the board of revision, and in light of the problems identified by 
the BTA with the even lower value proposed by the Timberlake appraiser, the 
BTA’s conclusion that the county auditor’s original valuation should be reinstated 
was not unreasonable.  “In 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.  The BTA’s decision to reject the board of revision’s valuation and reinstate 
the auditor’s original finding is supported by the evidence, and the BTA did not 
abuse its discretion in reaching that conclusion.  The decision of the BTA is 
therefore affirmed. 
Decision affirmed. 
January Term, 2005 
5 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
 
Rich, Crites & Wesp, L.L.C., and Mark H. Gillis, for appellee Board of 
Education of the Vandalia-Butler City School District. 
 
Wayne E. Petkovic, for appellant. 
______________________