Title: Oak View Props., LLC 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 
Oak View Properties, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-
786.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-786 
OAK VIEW PROPERTIES, L.L.C., APPELLEE, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF 
REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES; COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Oak View Properties, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 
Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-786.] 
Taxation—Because the board of education did not advance its argument for 
setting aside the board of revision's reductions at the Board of Tax 
Appeals, it was not error for the Board of Tax Appeals to retain the board 
of revision's reduced valuations—Decision affirmed on the authority of 
Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty Bd. of Revision. 
(No. 2014-1025—Submitted October 13, 2015—Decided March 3, 2016.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2013-4286 and 2013-4368. 
____________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this appeal, appellant, Columbus City Schools Board of Education 
(“BOE”), asserts that the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) erred by affirming the 
reduced valuations ordered by appellee Franklin County Board of Revision 
(“BOR”).  The BOE asks that we reverse the BTA’s decision and reinstate the 
original valuations found by the county auditor.  In Columbus City Schools Bd. of 
Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2015-Ohio-4837, ___ 
N.E.3d ___, we recently confronted similar claims in an appeal by the BOE, and 
we rejected them because the BOE had not raised and preserved those claims 
before the BTA.  The same is true in this case, and we therefore affirm the 
decision of the BTA based on the authority of Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. 
Background 
{¶ 2} At issue in this appeal is the value for tax year 2012 of four 
residential properties acquired by appellee Oak View Properties, L.L.C., from the 
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) to use as 
rental properties.  The property owner urged the BOR to adopt the sale prices as 
the property values.  The BOE urged retention of the auditor’s original valuations. 
{¶ 3} The BOR ordered reductions based not on the proferred sale prices 
but on other unspecified area sale prices and rents.  The specifics of what 
evidence was relied upon and how the computations were performed were not 
included in the record.  The result was that for each property the new valuation 
lay between the original auditor’s valuation and the sale price. 
Address: 
 
 
Auditor: 
Sale Price: 
BOR: 
2612 Carbondale Pl.  
$81,600 
$33,000 
$60,000 
5123 Jameson Dr. 
 
$84,200 
$30,500 
$66,000 
2615 Dellworth St. 
 
$81,400 
$28,000 
$61,900 
3050 Whitlow Rd. 
 
$86,400 
$25,133 
$65,700 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 4} The owner appealed to the BTA, seeking further reduction, and the 
BOE cross-appealed, seeking reversion to the auditor’s valuation.  The record 
contains only the owner’s notice of appeal to the BTA, dated September 11, 2013, 
the BOE’s notice of cross-appeal, dated September 17, 2013, the transcript 
certified to the BTA by the BOR, and the BTA’s decision, dated May 21, 2014. 
{¶ 5} The BTA noted in its decision that the HUD sale prices were 
properly rejected as the basis for valuation, and it also rejected the HUD 
appraisals as evidence of the value of the properties.  Because the owner had not 
shown the propriety of a lower valuation, the BTA retained the BOR’s reduced 
valuations of the property.  BTA Nos. 2013-4286 and 2013-4368, 2014 Ohio Tax 
LEXIS 3019 (May 21, 2014), 3-4. 
{¶ 6} The BTA made no mention of any arguments by the BOE in its 
decision. The decision refers to a “record of hearing before this board,” but it 
appears that no hearing was held and that no briefs were filed.  Accordingly, the 
BOE failed to pursue its cross-appeal by advancing arguments in support of its 
position. 
{¶ 7} The BOE has now appealed to this court, asserting as error that the 
BTA did not set aside the BOR reductions and revert to the auditor’s original 
valuations. 
UNDER COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS BD. OF EDN. V. FRANKLIN CTY. BD. OF 
REVISION, THE BTA DECISION IS AFFIRMED 
{¶ 8} In this case, the BOE filed a notice of appeal from the BOR to the 
BTA after the property owner had filed its notice of appeal.  In that notice of 
appeal, the BOE sought to set aside the BOR’s reductions and revert to the 
auditor’s original valuation—but it did so solely by setting forth, as the form 
prescribed, the value sought on appeal.  The notice of appeal set forth no 
explanation why the BOE was entitled to that relief.  Nor does the record indicate 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
that there was any other filing, such as a brief, that explained the grounds for the 
BOE’s appeal. 
{¶ 9} But no arguments for reversing and reinstating the auditor’s 
valuation were advanced to the BTA.  Thus, as we stated in Columbus City 
Schools Bd. of Edn., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2015-Ohio-4837, ___ N.E.3d ___, at  
¶ 15, “[b]ecause the BOE did not advance its argument for setting aside the 
BOR’s reductions at the BTA, we find that it was not error for the BTA to retain 
the BOR’s reduced valuations.”  We therefore affirm the decision of the BTA. 
Decision affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., and Mark Gillis, for appellant. 
_________________