[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-Ohio786.] 

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. 

_________________