[Cite as Stag Indus. Holdings, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2024-Ohio-2814.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF OHIO

STAG INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS, LLC, :

Appellant, : No. 113500

v. :

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF 

REVISION, ET AL., :

Appellees. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 25, 2024

Administrative Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals

Case No. 2023-473

Appearances:

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP and Stephen M. Griffith, 

Jr., for appellant.

Brindza McIntyre & Seed LLP, Robert A. Brindza, Daniel 

McIntyre, David H. Seed, and David A. Rose, for appellee

Strongsville City School District Board of Education.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

Appellant, Stag Industrial Holdings, LLC (“Stag”), appeals the 

decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) regarding the valuation for tax year 

2021 of its real property known as parcel number 393-01-018, which is located on
Foltz Industrial Parkway in Strongsville, Ohio (“the property”). Upon review of the 

entire record and relevant case law, we reverse the BTA’s decision and remand with 

instructions that for tax year 2021 the property’s valuation be modified to reflect a 

total valuation of $19,500,000 with the land value set at $714,600, as originally 

determined by the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer (“the fiscal officer”), and the 

building value set at $18,785,400, as supported by evidence of improvements and 

increased market value.

In March 2022, the Board of Education for the Strongsville City 

School District (“the BOE”) filed a valuation complaint seeking an increase in the 

value of the property for tax year 2021. The fiscal officer had valued the property for 

tax year 2021 at a total of $11,734,200, which consisted of a land value of $714,600 

and a building value of $11,019,600. However, the property had been improved with 

a commercial warehouse building in 2020, consisting of 179,577 square feet, and the 

property was sold to Stag for $19,500,000 in August 2021. The BOE sought to have 

the property’s value increased to the sale price, which was an increase of $7,765,800. 

Stag filed a countercomplaint claiming the property’s value had not changed.

A hearing was held before the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision 

(“BOR”). In support of its position, the BOE submitted a copy of the limited 

warranty deed, other documents as to the sale and the sale price, and photographs 

that included the newly constructed warehouse building. The limited warranty deed 

was stamped by the fiscal officer on August 30, 2021, with information showing the 

sale amount of $19,500,000 and a land value of $714,600, which was unchanged. 
There was no dispute as to the recency or arm’s-length nature of the sale. Counsel 

for the BOE requested an increase in the building value and indicated that the BOE 

was not asking for a change to the land value. Counsel for Stag conceded the 

purchase price but argued the land value should remain the same because the BOE 

had introduced no evidence of land value.

As reflected in the oral hearing journal summary, the BOR found that 

the property’s “2021 purchase price is the best indication of value” and granted “a 

value of $19,500,000 for the subject property for tax year 2021.” However, in 

allocating that amount, the BOR increased the land value to $1,187,500 and the 

building value to $18,312,500.

1

 The BOR issued a decision notice on March 28, 

2023. The BOR offered no explanation for the increase in the land value.

Stag appealed the BOR’s decision to the BTA. Stag conceded the 

market value of the property for tax year 2021 was $19,500,000, but it challenged 

the BOR’s increase in the land value in its allocation. Stag submitted a merit brief

in which it argued that the BTA could not lawfully affirm the BOR’s determination 

of land value because it was not supported by any evidence. Stag requested that the 

BTA order the land value be set to the fiscal officer’s valuation of $714,600 and the 

improvement or building value be increased to $18,785,400. No hearing was 

requested by the parties.

1 Not only was the BOR’s determination of land value above the $714,600 set by 

the fiscal officer for tax year 2021, but it also appears that the property was reassessed in 

2022 with a land value of only $824,600.
The BTA issued a decision on December 1, 2023, in which it found the 

BOE had presented evidence of a facially valid sale, and the BTA ordered the 

property valued at $19,500,000 for tax year 2021. In its decision, the BTA observed 

that Stag had conceded the sale was valid and only opposed the increase in the land 

value. The BTA indicated that Stag was relying upon statements of counsel as 

opposed to evidence to support its argument and rejected Stag’s argument regarding

land value and the BOE’s failure to present evidence to support the allocation 

between land and improvements. Even though Stag was not challenging the sale’s 

validity or the purchase price, the BTA found that Stag did not present any evidence 

and failed to meet its burden to rebut the sale’s presumptive validity. Having 

rejected Stag’s arguments, the BTA did not alter the BOR’s allocation of the 

property’s total value between land and improvements for tax year 2021. Stag timely 

appealed the BTA’s decision to this court.

Under its sole assignment of error, Stag claims the BTA erred by 

affirming the BOR’s determination of land value when the record contains no 

evidence to support a change from the land value of $714,600 set by the fiscal officer. 

Stag seeks a reallocation of the property’s total value and argues that the appropriate 

disposition would have been to reinstate the fiscal officer’s original determination of 

land value for tax year 2021 and to increase the improvement value. We agree.

Initially, it is important to recognize that in this case, Stag does not 

dispute the property’s total valuation for tax year 2021 of $19,500,000, which 

amount was reflective of a recent arm’s-length sale of the property for taxation 
purposes. See R.C. 5713.03. As such, this is not a case in which rebuttal evidence 

was required to refute the total value assigned to the property by the BOR.

2 Rather, 

in this case the challenge relates to the allocation of the total property value between 

land and improvement. More specifically, with regard to that allocation, Stag claims 

there is an absence of any evidence in the record to support the BOR’s increase in 

land value or from which the BTA could independently determine a land value other 

than the value set by the fiscal officer. The BOE, which only sought an increase in 

the building or improvement value, does not dispute that there was never any

evidence presented as to land value.

We also recognize that this case is distinguishable from the 

circumstances of Arbors E. RE, LLC v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2018-Ohio1611, which is cited in the BTA’s decision. That case involved the sale of a nursing 

home, which had a business value separable from a real-estate value, and there was 

a dispute over to what extent the sale price ought to have been allocated to assets 

other than real estate. Id. at ¶ 1, 21. The party advocating for the reduction from the 

sale price had presented an appraisal report to the board of revision, but that 

evidence had not been transmitted to the BTA. Id. at ¶ 18. Because the BTA 

neglected to obtain a complete record and did not consult all the evidence that had 

2 Generally, the burden of proof is on the appellant before the BTA to prove its right 

to an increase in or a reduction from the property value determined by a board of revision 

that was supported by evidence of a recent arm’s-length sale as the best evidence of true 

value. See Lakota Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2006-

Ohio-1059, ¶ 6-7, 25. Here, Stag does not contest the sale price was a result of a recent

arm’s-length transaction or challenge the property’s total valuation for tax year 2021.
been submitted to the board of revision, the matter was remanded to the BTA. Id. 

at ¶ 1, 17-18. That is not the situation presented in this matter, wherein the total 

property value is conceded, the disputed allocation is between land and 

improvements, and there was never any evidence presented as to the land value.

There is little authority directly on point in this matter. However, 

contrary to the decision of the BTA, we find the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decisions

in Polaris Amphitheater Concerts, Inc. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2008-

Ohio-2454, and Bd. of Edn. of the Columbus City School Dist. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. 

of Revision, 90 Ohio St.3d 564 (2001), to be instructive in this case.

In reviewing the decision of the BTA, we must determine whether the 

decision is “‘reasonable and lawful.’” Polaris at ¶ 18, quoting Shiloh Automotive, 

Inc. v. Levin, 2008-Ohio-68, ¶ 15; see also HCP EMOH, L.L.C. v. Washington Cty. 

Bd. of Revision, 2018-Ohio-4750, ¶ 11, citing Satullo v. Wilkins, 2006-Ohio-5856, 

¶ 14; R.C. 5717.04. “Under this standard, we will affirm the BTA’s determinations of 

fact if the record contains reliable and probative evidence to support the BTA’s 

findings” but “will reverse if the record does not support, or if it contradicts, the 

BTA’s findings.” Id., citing Dayton-Montgomery Cty. Port Auth. v. Montgomery 

Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2007-Ohio-1948, ¶ 14, 27-28. Moreover, “[w]e review de novo 

the BTA’s resolution of legal issues but defer to the BTA’s findings concerning the 

weight of the evidence if there is record support for them.” (Emphasis added.) HCP 

EMOH at ¶ 11, citing Lunn v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2016-Ohio-8075, ¶ 13. In 

Polaris, the Supreme Court reversed the BTA’s determination of land value because 
the record contained no support for, and in fact contradicted, the BTA’s finding for 

land value. Id. at ¶ 16-18.3

In this case, there is no evidence in the record to support the BOR’s 

decision to increase the land value from the value set by the fiscal officer, 

presumably performing the duties of a county auditor. As the Supreme Court

recognized in Polaris, “[t]he allocation of value between land and improvements 

does not constitute an arbitrary exercise; it relates to the basic method by which 

county auditors determine value.” Id. at ¶ 17. In this regard, “[t]he Tax 

Commissioner’s administrative rules direct the county auditors to arrive at total 

value by separately valuing the land and improvements” and “[t]he commissioner 

also prescribes two different rules for land valuation and the valuation of 

improvements.” Id., citing Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-07(B), 5703-25-07(C), 

5703-25-11, and 5703-25-12.

Thus, even if the burden was on Stag in challenging the BOR’s 

determination of land value to the BTA, Stag was free to rely upon the fiscal officer’s 

valuation under the circumstances presented. “If the BOR had retained the auditor’s 

original assessed valuation, the BTA would have been justified in adopting that 

value.” Bd. of Edn. of the Columbus City School Dist., 90 Ohio St.3d 564 at 566-567, 

3 Unlike the Polaris case, we find no cross-appeal was required by the BOE to have 

the building value adjusted because Stag sought to adjust both the land value and the 

building value in this matter. See id. at ¶ 3, 10-13 (finding a cross-appeal was required if 

the Board of Education of the Olentangy Local Schools wanted to challenge whether the 

BTA assigned too little value to improvements when the property owner only sought a 

reduction equal to the amount by which the land value was overstated).
citing Salem Med. Arts & Dev. Corp. v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Revision, 82 Ohio 

St.3d 193, 195 (1998); see also Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware

Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2017-Ohio-8843, ¶ 20, 24. However, “[h]ere the value set by 

the BOR was its own value, different from that assessed by the auditor.” Id. at 567.

The BTA was required to review the transcript and make an independent judgment 

based on its own weighing of the evidence. See id., citing Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. 

Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 76 Ohio St.3d 13, 15 (1996); see also 5717.03(B). Yet,

there is no evidence or other information in the transcript to explain the action taken 

by the BOR and “[b]y affirming the BOR’s valuation, the BTA affirmed a valuation 

that was not supported by any evidence.” Id. Under these circumstances, we find 

the BTA erred by rejecting Stag’s challenge. See id. at 565-567 (finding the BTA 

erred in adopting a value set by a board of revision that was different from that 

assessed by the auditor when there was no evidence to support the board of 

revision’s valuation). As stated by the Supreme Court, “[w]e cannot affirm a 

determination of value by the BTA that is not supported by sufficient probative 

evidence.” Id. at 567. “By agreeing to waive an evidentiary hearing before the BTA, 

both parties agreed to have the case decided based on the record as it then existed.” 

Id. at ¶ 566.

The record herein demonstrates that the land value of $714,600 as set 

by the fiscal officer was neither contested nor refuted by the BOE. Rather, the BOE 

solely sought an increase in the building or improvement value and presented 

evidence of the then recent sale of the property as improved with the commercial 
warehouse building that was constructed in 2020. Despite the lack of evidence to 

support an increase in the land valuation, the BOR increased the land value in its 

allocation of the property’s total value between land and improvements, and the 

BTA affirmed the BOR’s allocation without sufficient probative evidence from which 

it could independently determine a land value other than the value set by the fiscal 

officer. Because we find that the BTA’s decision in this regard is unreasonable and 

unlawful, it must be reversed.

4

Accordingly, Stag’s sole assignment of error is sustained. We reverse 

the BTA’s decision and remand with instructions that for tax year 2021 the 

property’s valuation shall be modified to reflect a total valuation of $19,500,000 

with the land value set at $714,600, as originally determined by the fiscal officer, 

and the building value set at $18,785,400, as supported by evidence of 

improvements and increased market value.5

Judgment reversed and remanded.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Board 

of Tax Appeals to carry this judgment into execution.

4 We find the authority cited by the BOE is distinguishable from this matter and 

are not otherwise persuaded by the arguments presented by the BOE.

5 In accordance with R.C. 5717.04, we may reverse, vacate, or modify a decision of 

the BTA.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR