[Cite as Amherst Marketplace Station, L.L.C. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision , 2021-Ohio-3866.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) AMHERST MARKETPLACE STATION, LLC Appellant

v. LORAIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, et al. Appellees C.A. No. 20CA011623

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CASE No. 2018-930

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: November 1, 2021

CALLAHAN, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Appellant, Amherst Marketplace St ation, LLC (“Amherst Marketpla ce”) appeals an order of the Board of Tax A ppeals. This Court affirms.
I. {¶2} Amherst Marketplace is the owner of a commercial property in Lo rain County that is occupied by a Giant Eagle grocery store with two much s maller spaces leased by other businesses. Amherst Marketplace filed a complaint with the Lor ain County Board of Revision requesting a reduction in the tax able value of the property as of January 1, 2017, alleging that the Auditor’s valuation of the property exceeded the fair market va lue. The Amherst Exempted Village School Distric t Board of Education (“the Board of Educa tion”) filed a countercomplaint requesting an increase in the t axable value, arguing that a rec ent sale in an arms-length transaction best reflected the f air market value of the propert y.2
{¶3} During the hearing on the matter, Amherst Marketplace submitted an appraisal (“the Racek appraisal”) that valued the property at $4,730,000 as of January 1, 2015. The appraiser acknowledged that th e property was purchased in 2015 for $11,655,000 but appraised the property as if it was not subj ect to the existing Giant Eag le lease. An appraisal submitted by the Auditor (“the Sprout appraisal”), in contrast, took the exi sting lease with Giant Eagle into consideration and valued the property at $11,300,000. The Boar d of Education introduced documentation establishing the re cent sale price. The Board of Revision concluded that the recent sales price of $11,655,000 re flected the fair market val ue and adjusted the valuation accordingly. Amherst Marketplace appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”), arguing that R.C. 5713.03 required valuation of the property as if it were u nencumbered by a lease. The Board of Education argued tha t under R.C. 5713.03, a recent sal e remained the best evidence of fair market value even when the property was encumbered by a le ase at the time of sale and maintained that Amherst Market place had not rebutted that presu mption. {¶4} The BTA upheld the determination of value by the Board of Revis ion, noting the maxim that the best evidence of a property’s true value is a re cent sale in an arm’s-length transaction. Observing that the party opposing the sale as bes t evidence bears the burden of rebutting that evidence, the BTA concluded that Amherst Marketp lace had articulated legal arguments regarding the sale of leased properties but had not o ffered evidence to rebut the presumption. The BTA also concluded that the Racek appraisal “ [did] not discredit the sale of the subject property or provide r eliable evidence of value in i ts own right.” Consequently, the BTA valued the property at $11,655,000. {¶5} Amherst Marketplace appealed to this Court pursuant to R.C. 571 7.04. Because many of the seventeen assignments of error that Amherst Marketp lace has raised address the3 same question of law, the assignm ents of error are rearranged a nd combined for purposes of disposition.
II. Standard of Review {¶6} Because determining the fair market value of property for tax p urposes is a question of fact that lies “prima rily within the province of th e taxing authorities,” a decision of the BTA should not be disturbed on appeal “unless it affirmativ ely appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful.” Bd. of Revision of Cuyahoga Cty. v. Fodor , 15 Ohio St.2d 52, syllabus (1968). See also R.C. 5717.04; Akron Ctr. Plaza, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision , 128 Ohio St.3d 145, 2010-Ohio-5035, ¶ 9. “The standard for c onducting that review ranges from abuse of discretion, which applies when [reviewing courts] are asked to reverse the BTA’s determination regarding credibility of witnes ses, to de novo review of legal issues.” Grace Cathedral, Inc. v. Testa , 143 Ohio St.3d 212, 2015-Ohio-2067, ¶ 16. Reviewing courts should “not hesitate to re verse a BTA decision that is b ased on an incorrect legal conclusion.” Bd. of Edn. of Gahanna-Jefferson Loc. School Dist. v. Zaino , 93 Ohio St.3d 231, 232 (2001). The arguments raised in Amherst Marketplace’s assi gnments of error present legal issues, so this Court’s review is de novo. See O’Keeffe v. McClain , Slip Opinion No. 2021- Ohio-2186, ¶ 12, citing Progressive Plastics, Inc. v. Testa , 133 Ohio St.3d 490, 2012-Ohio-4759, ¶ 15.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT THAT PROPERTY MUST BE VALUED AS UNLEASED. THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HELD THAT R.C. 5713.03 DEMANDS VALUATION “FREE OF ENCUMBRANCES SUCH AS LEASES.” LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC. V. WASHINGTON COUNTY BD. OF REVISION , 116 N.E.3D 79, 154 OHIO ST.3D 463, 2018-OHIO-1974.4

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 7
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED BY DEVIATING FROM THE PLAIN MEANING OF A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE. BOLEY V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. , 125 OHIO ST.3D 510, 2010-OHIO-2550, 929 N.E.2D 448. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 10
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT FOUND SUPPORT FOR THE LEASE-ENCUMBERED SALE PRICE AS EVIDENCE OF VALUE BECAUSE “PROPERTIES OCCUPIED BY REGIONAL TENANTS (SUCH AS GIANT EAGLE) FREELY SELL WITHIN THE MARKETPLACE” WHEN ITS DUTY IS TO FIND THE UNENCUMBERED MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 12
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT REJECTED APPELLANT’S ARGUMEN T THAT R.C. 5713.03 REQUIRES VALUATION “AS IF AVAILABLE TO BE LEASED” RATHER THAN “AS IF IT WERE LEASED AS OF JANUARY 1, 2017,” AND IN ITS MISSTATEMENT OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN HARRAH’S OHIO ACQUISITION CO., LLC V. CUYAHOGA CTY. BD. OF REVISION , 154 OHIO ST.3D 340, 2018-OHIO-4370 TO SUPPORT THIS REJECTION. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 13
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS’ STATEMENT THAT “AN APPRAISER MAY APPRAISE THE UNENCUMBERED ESTATE AS IF IT WERE LEASED” IS A PLAIN ERROR OF LAW GIVEN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC. V. WASHINGTON COUNTY BD. OF REVISION , 116 N.E.3D 79, 154 OHIO ST.3D 463, 2018- OHIO-1974 AND HARRAH’S OHIO ACQUISITION CO., LLC V. CUYAHOGA CTY. BD. OF REVISION , 154 OHIO ST.3D 340, 2018-OHIO-4370. {¶7} Amherst Marketplace’s fourth, se venth, tenth, twelfth, and thir teenth assignments of error argue that the BTA’s d ecision conflicts with the plain language of R.C. 5713.03 and previous decisions of the Suprem e Court of Ohio. This Court do es not agree. {¶8} The “true value” of property is “the amount for which that prop erty would sell on the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer.” State ex rel. The Park Invest. Co. v. Bd.5
of Tax Appeals , 175 Ohio St. 410, 412 (1964). R.C. 5713.03 provides that the valuation of property by county auditors must reflect “the true value of the fee simple estate, as if unencumbered * * *.” This langua ge contains a “significant cha nge[]” to the language of R.C. 5713.03 as a result of 2012 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 487, effective Sept ember 10, 2012, because previous versions of the statu te omitted any reference to the u nencumbered state of property. See Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 150 Ohio St.3d 527, 2017-Ohio-4415, ¶ 15.
See also former R.C. 5713.03 (“The county auditor * * * shall determine, as nearly as practicable, the true value of each separate * * * parcel of re al property[.]”). {¶9} H.B. 487 also changed the manner in which recent arm’s-length s ales are considered in the valuation of property. Before the effective date of H.B. 487, former R.C. 5713.03 provided that county auditors “shall consider the sale price” of property in a recent arm’s-length transaction “to be the true value for taxation pur poses.” In H.B. 487, the legislature “replaced shall with may .” (Emphasis in original.) Terraza 8 at ¶ 15. {¶10} The Supreme Court of Ohio has a ddressed the import of the secon d change to R.C. 5713.03 in several recent decisions. As a consequence of H.B. 487, a recent sale in an arm’s-length transaction “is not conclusive evidence of the tru e value of property[,]” but is rebuttably presumed to be the true value and represents the bes t evidence of true value. Terraza
8 at ¶ 30, 32-33. See also Orange City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of
Revision , 152 Ohio St.3d 325, 2017-Ohio-8817, ¶ 13; Buckeye Terminals, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 152 Ohio St.3d 86, 2017-Ohio-7664, ¶ 15. The use of a recent arm’s-length sale price is still the favored means of determining value for purpo ses of taxation. Terraza 8 at ¶ 33. Two rebuttable presumptions attach to evidence of a recent arm’ s-length sale. “[The] ‘best evidence’ principle [is] a rebu ttable presumption that the sale price constitutes the value of the6
property.” Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 159 Ohio St.3d 283, 2020-Ohio-353, ¶ 29. The Supreme Court has also “recogniz ed a companion presumption that ‘a submitted sale price “has met all the requirements that characterize true value,” subject to rebuttal by proof that the sale was not at arm’s length or not recent.’” Id . at 29, quoting Terraza
8 at ¶ 32, quoting Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision , 78 Ohio St.3d 325, 328 (1997). {¶11} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently addressed the intersection o f the H.B. 487 amendments to R.C. 5713.03 in Rancho Cincinnati Rivers, L.L.C. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of
Revision , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2798. In that case, the owners of the subject property maintained that the appraisal upon which the court of common pl eas relied in an appeal from the board of revision 1 was not competent evidence of the property’s true value becaus e, by failing to value the property as if vacant and available for sale, it conf licted with the expr ess terms of R.C. 5713.03 as amended by H.B. 487. Rancho Cincinnati Rivers at ¶ 7-8, 14. The property owner maintained that “R.C. 5713.03 re quires the tax assessor to assu me ‘an unencumbered transfer, wherein the hypothetical seller of the property vacates at clos ing and the buyer could take immediate possession and occupancy.’” Id . at ¶ 14. In other words, the owner advocated for a “vacant-at-transfer rule” with respect to the valuation of leas ed properties. See id . The owner relied upon an appraisal that, with respect to the sales-compar ison analysis, “adjusted downward the sales price of any comparab le property that was subject to a lease because ‘a premium was

1 As an alternative to appealing a decision from a board of revi sion to the BTA, R.C. 5717.05 permits an appeal to the court of common pleas.7 considered to have been paid for the property rights conveyed.’ ” 2 Id . at ¶ 16. In contrast, the competing appraisal determined that because the lease and rent terms of comparable properties “‘were considered to be at market given the location, physical characteristics, and market conditions[,]’” the sale prices d id not require adjustment. Id . The question before the Supreme Court required the Court to determine which appraisal approach was “proper * * * for purposes of future applic ations of R.C. 5713.03.” Id . at ¶ 17. {¶12} The Supreme Court rejected the o wner’s argument that the expres s terms of R.C. 5713.03 required a vacant-at-transfer approach. Id . at ¶ 20. Noting that the plain meaning of a statute is determined with reference to both lexical definition s and “the meaning that the words have acquired when they are used in case law[,]” the Court revi ewed the history of the phrase “as if unencumbered” in its decisions. Id . at ¶ 21-28. The C ourt concluded: In light of the syllabus in [ Alliance Towers, LTD. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision , 37 Ohio St.3d 16 (1988)], and the other cases preceding the enactm ent of H.B. 487, the phrase “fee simple estate, as if unencumbered” had an acqui red meaning when the General Assembly inserte d that phrase into R.C. 5713.03. B y using that phrase, the legislature codified its agreement with the require ment that property should be valued using market ren t rather than the actual rent from an existing lease encumbering the property a t the time of a sale and transf er. Id . at ¶ 28. The Supreme Court conc luded that its cases “establi she[d] a ‘market-lease rule’” in which “the leased-fee sale price” is the best evidence of value and establishes a rebuttable presumption of value. Id . at ¶ 32. “This first aspect o f the market-lease rule strongl y mitigates against [the owner’s] vacant-at-transfer rule: if property must be valued as if vacant at transfer, then it makes no sense to presume that a leased-fee sale price constitutes the property’s value.”
Id

.

2 Amherst retained the same appraiser in this matter, and the ap praisal in this matter used the same methodology.8
{¶13} The Court also explained a second aspect of the market-lease ru le: property may be valued with consideration for income generated by a hypothet ical lease, provided that the lease reflects current market rates. Id. at ¶ 33. As a consequence, the Cour t concluded that “R.C. 5713.03 does not as a matter of law require adjustments to leas ed-fee sales used as sales comparables; instead, adjustment s should be made based on the a ppraiser’s expert analysis of the market for the property.” Id . at ¶ 37. {¶14} As a practical matter, then, the Supreme Court rejected the own er’s position that the terms of R.C. 5713.03 forbid consideration of a leased-fee sale price and, conversely, reiterated that evidence demonstrating a recent leased-fee sale constitutes the best evidence of value and the presumptive value of property, subject to rebutta l. In so doing, the Court stated unequivocally that neither R.C. 5713.03 nor the Court’s own pre cedent requires property to be valued using a vacant-at-transfer methodology. Rancho Cincinnati Rivers at ¶ 32, 40-42. With respect to appraisal methodology, th e Supreme Court concluded t hat R.C. 5713.03 neither requires nor forbids adjustments to value with respect to prope rty rights in leased comparables.
Id . at ¶ 35. {¶15} Amherst Marketplace’s fourth, se venth, tenth, twelfth, and thir teenth assignments of error argue that the plain language of R.C. 5713.03 required the BTA to value the property using a vacant-at-transfer m ethodology. The Supreme Court of O hio has rejected this position, and this Court overrules the four th, seventh, tenth, twelfth, a nd thirteenth assignments of error on this basis.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED BY ADOPTING THE RECENT SALE PRICE OF A LEASE[]-ENCUMBERED PROPERTY AS THE VALUE FOR TAX PURPOSES WHEN THE RECORD CONTAINED COMPETENT AND PROBATIVE APPRAISAL EVIDENCE OF THE SUBJECT9

PROPERTY’S UNENCUMBERED VALUE. TERRAZA 8, L.L.C. V. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION , 83 N.E.3D 916, 150 OHIO ST.3D 527, 2017-OHIO-4415. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT THE RECENT LEASE-ENCUMBERED SALE PRICE REMAINED THE “BEST EVIDENCE” OF VALUE DESPITE BEING AFFIRMATIVELY REBUTTED BY UNENCUMBERED APPRAISAL EVIDENCE. TERRAZA 8, L.L.C. V. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION , 83 N.E.3D 916, 150 OHIO ST.3D 527, 2017-OHIO-4415. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT A SALE IS THE BEST EVIDENCE OF VALUE WHEN ITS LEASES ARE “CONSISTENT WITH THE MARKET” RATHER THAN WHEN THE SALE REFLECTS FEE SIMPLE, AS IF UNENCUMBERED VALUE. R.C. 5713.03. {¶16} Amherst Marketplace’s first assi gnment of error is that the BTA erred by adopting the recent leased-fee sales price as the property value and rej ecting the vacant-at-transfer valuation advocated by the Racek appraisal. Amherst Marketplac e’s second and third assignments of error argue that the BTA erred by concluding tha t the recent leased-fee sale was the best evide nce of value. {¶17} In Rancho Cincinnati Rivers , the Supreme Court of O hio concluded that the phrase “as if unencumbered,” as used in R.C. 5713.03, has an ac quired meaning that encompasses the Court’s previous decisions. Id ., Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2798, at ¶ 21-28. As such, the Court concluded, a vacant-at-transfer valuation is not required, and a recent prior leased-fee sale is rebuttably presumed to be the best evidence of true value. Id . at ¶ 32, 36. Amherst Marketplace’s first , second, and third assignments of e rror are overruled on this basis.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY ACCEPTING A HIGHEST AND BEST USE “AS A PROPERTY OCCUPIED AND OPERATED BY A REGIONAL OR NATIONAL TENANT.”10

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED BY REJECTING “SECOND GENERATION” LEASE COMPARABLES IN FAVOR OF “FIRST GENERATION” COMPARABLES WHEN IT IS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PROPERTY TO BE “FIRST GENERATION” AND “UNENCUMBERED.” ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 9
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY INQUIRING AS TO WHETHER APPELLANT SHOWED THAT THE LEASES IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF SALE WERE “AT MARKET.” THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO PROVE THAT THE LEASES IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF SALE WERE “AT MARKET.” TERRAZA 8, L.L.C. V. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION , 83 N.E.3D 916, 150 OHIO ST.3D 527, 2017-OHIO-4415. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 11
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS’ STATEMENT THAT “AN APPRAISER MAY APPRAISE THE UNENCUMBERED ESTATE AS IF IT WERE LEASED” EXPOSES A PROFOUND AND FUNDAMENTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE BOARD OR [ITS] OBVIOUS INTENT [TO] NULLIFY A DULY ENACTED STATUTE. IT IS ALSO PLAIN ERROR OF LAW GIVEN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC. V. WASHIN GTON COUNTY BD. OF REVISION , 116 N.E.3D 79, 154 OHIO ST.3D 463, 2018-OHIO-1974 AND HARRAH’S OHIO ACQUISITION CO., LLC V. CUYAHOGA CTY. BD. OF REVISION , 154 OHIO ST.3D 340, 2018-OHIO-4370. {¶18} In its fifth assignment of error, Amherst Marketplace argues th at the BTA erred by accepting the highest and best use advocated by the Sprout a ppraisal because it was incompatible with a hypothetical vacant-at-transfer sale. The sixth assignment of error argues that the BTA erred by failing to reject the Sprout appraisal’s valuation based on its reliance on the sale of properties with first generation leases. Similarly , the ninth assignment of error argues that “[a] valuation of the Subject Property as leased at market terms is unlawful[,]” and the eleventh assignment of error argues that a competent appraisal must “account for the presence of11 * * * leases in * * * sales comparables and adjust them to refl ect the rental market for existing space[.]” {¶19} As noted above, the Supreme Court of Ohio has rejected Amherst Marketplace’s argument that a hypothetical va cant-at-transfer sale methodolog y is required for determining the true value of property. Rancho Cincinnati Rivers at ¶ 32, 36. In that case, the Supreme Court considered the argument that a n appraisal that relied upon comp arable properties subject to firstgeneration leases without downwar d adjustment in the sales pric es to account for lease terms was not competent evidence of value. Id . at ¶ 16. Addressing a situation in which there was no recent arm’s-length sale to establish the presumptive value of a property, the Court concluded that “an appraisal that takes i nto account a lease with terms t hat are typical for the market may be considered and adopted.” Id . at ¶ 33. {¶20} Because the Court declined to adopt a vacant-at-transfer rule a nd concluded that an appraisal methodology that re lies on market-lease terms is c ompetent evidence of value, it follows that the language of R.C. 5713.03 did not require the B TA to reject the highest and best use advocated by the Sprout appraisal in this case. Similarly, an appraiser is not required to assume that a property is vacant at the time of sale or to make property-rights adjustments for existing leases. See id. at ¶ 35. Amherst Marketplace’s fifth, sixth, ninth, and eleve nth assignments of error are overruled. 3
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 8

3 Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Rancho Cincinnati Rivers , this Court ordered the parties to brief the impact of that decision on thi s case. In response, Amherst Marketplace argued, for the first time, that the BTA also erred by relying on the Sprout appraisal because that appraisal was not based on market rent as of the t ax lien date at issue. Amherst Marketplace’s assignments of error, however, are based solely o n the proposition that R.C. 5713.03 requires a vacant-at- transfer analysis. See generally App.R. 16(A)(7); Loc.R. 7(B)(7).12

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY FAILING TO FIND A FEE SIMPLE, AS IF UNENCUMBERED, VALUE BASED ON THE SOLE UNENCUMBERED EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, THE RACEK APPRAISAL. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 14
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED BY FAILING TO INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINE THE UNENCUMBERED VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY USING THE UNENCUMBERED DATA IN THE RECORD. {¶21} Amherst Marketplace’s eighth a ssignment of error argues that th e BTA erred by failing to find that the presump tive value established by the r ecent arm’s-length sale was rebutted by the Racek appraisal. Specifically, Amherst Marketplace main tains that evidence consisting of an appraisal that relies upon th e vacant-at-transfer rule rebut s evidence of a prior, arm’s-length, leased-fee sale as a matter of law. In its fourteenth assignme nt of error, Amherst Marketplace maintains that the BTA erred as a matter of law by rejecting th e Racek appraisal because it was “the only evidence of unencumber ed value in the record[.]” {¶22} In Rancho Cincinnati Rivers , the Supreme Court of Ohio reiterated that a recent arm’s-length sale constitutes the best evidence of value and es tablishes the presumptive value of the subject property. Id. at ¶ 32. The Court also concluded that R.C. 5713.03 neither r equires nor forbids the appraisal methodology now advocated by Amherst Marketplace. Id. at ¶ 35. Instead, the Court wrote, “[t]h e BTA or a common pleas court, a s the fact-finders, must decide how much weight to accord competing appraisals.” Id . Amherst Marketplace’s eighth and fourteenth assignments of erro r are overruled because, under Rancho Cincinnati Rivers , an appraisal that relies on the vacant-at-transfer rule does not a utomatically rebut the presumption of value established by a recent arm’s-length sale as a matter of law.13

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 15 THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS[’] DECISION VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IMPLIED BY THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 16
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS’ DECISION AND ORDER VIOLATES THE OHIO CONSTITUTION’S MANDATE OF UNIFORM ASSESSMENT. ARTICLE XII, SECTION 2. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 17
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS’ DECISION AND ORDER VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 2 OF THE OHIO STATE CONSTITUTION AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY APPLYING THE DEFINITION OF FEE SIMPLE, AS IF UNENCUMBERED, AND INTERPRETING §5713.03 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE, IN A MANNER THAT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CERTAIN TAXPAYERS. {¶23} Amherst Marketplace’s fifteent h, sixteenth, and seventeenth ass ignments of error raise constitutional ch allenges to the BTA’s decision. Each re sts on the premise that the BTA’s decision is contrary to the clear language of R.C. 5713.03 whic h, according to Amherst Marketplace, mandates the vacant-at-transfer rule with respect to valuation. As noted above, however, in Rancho Cincinnati Rivers , the Supreme Court of Ohio c oncluded that that phrase “as if unencumbered” has an acquired meaning that encompasses the C ourt’s previous decisions. Id

. at ¶ 21-28. As such, the Court concluded, a vacant-at-transfer valuation is not required, and a recent prior leased-fee sale is rebuttably presumed to be the b est evidence of true value. Id . at ¶ 32, 36. The BTA’s decision in this case is consistent with R.C . 5713.03 and Rancho Cincinnati
Rivers . Because Amherst Marketplace’ s constitutional arguments are p remised on the conclusion that the BTA mis interpreted R .C. 5713.03, they are w ithout merit. {¶24} Amherst Marketplace’s fifteent h, sixteenth, and seventeenth ass ignments of error are overruled.14

III. {¶25} Amherst Marketplace’s assignmen ts of error are overruled. The judgment of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals to carry this judgment into execution. A certified cop y of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate , pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Cour t of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the pa rties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket , pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

L YNNE S. CALLAHAN FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, J. TEODOSIO, J. CONCUR.15

APPEARANCES: RYAN J. GIBBS, Attorney a t Law, for Appellant. CARA FINNEGAN, Attorney a t Law, for Appellee. DAVID A. YOST, Attorney General, for Appellee. GARY T. STEDRONSKY, Attorne y at Law, for Appellee.