[Cite as ABC TGAB, L.L.C. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision , 2021-Ohio-4185.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ABC TGAB, LLC, : JUDGES: : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellant : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. : Hon. John W. Wise, J. -vs- : : STARK COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, : Case No. 2021CA00030 et al., : : Defendants - Appellees : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2020CV01309

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 24, 2021

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendants-Appellees

BRIAN T. WINCHESTER ROBERT M. MORROW JESSE M. SCHMIDT Lane Alton McNeal Schick Archibald & Biro Co., LPA Two Miranova Place, Sui te 220 4608 St. Clair Ave. Columbus, Ohio 43215 Cleveland, Ohio 44103 Mary Jo Shannon Slick Stark County Educational Service Center 6057 Strip Ave. N.W. North Canton, Ohio 44720Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 2

Baldwin, P.J. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant ABC TGAB, LLC appeals from the February 19, 2021 Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas affirm ing the decision of the Stark County Board of Revision.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} Appellant ABC TGAB, LLC (hereinafter “ABC”) purchased seven par cels of land on December 5, 2019. These undeveloped seven parcels, whic h totaled 43.39 acres, were part of the seven parcels purchased from Tam-O-Shanter Com pany in December of 2019 for $8,750,000. The seven parcels (10011537, 10011539, 10011540, 10011541, 10011542, 10011543, 10011544) totaled 59.12 acres. Two of the seven parcels (10011540, 10011541), which totaled 15.73 acres, were simultane ously sold a third party (Meijer Stores Limited Partnership) for $4,600,000 in another a rm’s length transaction recorded on December 6, 2019. This left a remainder of 43.39 a cres. {¶3} Appellee Jackson Local School District Board of Education recei ved tax revenue from the parcels. Appellee filed a valuation complai nt with the Board of Revision for the tax lien date of January 1, 2019. Appellee sought a val ue of $4,150,000 for the five parcels , which represented the difference between the tot al purchase price for appellant’s seven parcels ($8,750,000) and the sale price of th e two parcels ($4,600,000) sold to the third party, Meijer Stores Limited Partnership. In turn, appellant, based upon the testimony and appraisal of i ts appraiser, Daniel Miller, so ught a valuation of $3,253,000. The Board of Revision found in favor of appellee an d issued a decision on August 27, 2020 determinizing that the value of the five parcel s was $4,150,000.Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 3

{¶4} Appellant then appealed to the trial court. At the hearing befo re the trial court, appellant’s expert apprai ser, Daniel Miller, testified t hat because the five parcels had different potential best uses and would likely be partially combined as part of any sale, he treated them as five separate properties. As of Januar y 1, 2019, all of the properties were undeveloped land. Miller concluded that parcels 10011543 and 10011544 (+/- 6.77 acres) (Property One) were commercial vacant land and that their highest and best use was a commercial development. The contiguo us parcels were at a four way lighted intersection with good road frontage, and good exposure and visibility. He opined that Property One’s value was $1,185,000. With respec t to parcel numbers 10011537 and 10011542 (+/- 14.92 acres) (Property Two), Miller concluded that this was vacant residential land with a highest and best use as senior r esidential living or assisted residential living with a market value of $940,000. These parc els have minimal frontage on Fulton Drive N.W., a public road, and minimal visibility and exposure. Finally, with respect to parcel number 10011539 (+/- 21.70 acres) (Property T hree), Miller opined that this was too was residential vacant land with a highest and bes t use as senior residential living or assisted residential living with a market value of $ 1,128,000. This parcel has minimal public road frontage a nd minimal visibility and exposur e. Miller’s appraisal was dated January 1, 2019. {¶5} In order to arrive at his apprai sed values, Miller considered s ales of properties comparable to all three properties. For Property One , he considered the sales of three similar commercial properties within the past five yea rs and used the sales prices of the same to arrive at a price of $175,000.00 per acre. With respect to Property Two, Miller compared such property wit h four recent sales of residen tial properties which wereStark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 4

developed into senior/assisted living residences and with respe ct to Property Three, he compared such property with five sales of residential propertie s which were developed into senior/assisted living /skilled nursing facilities. Mille r arrived at a price of $63,000 per acre and $52,000 per acre respectively. {¶6} Appellee did not have any licensed appraiser or any other exper t witness testify at the hearing, Rather, appellee subtracted the sale pr ice of the two parcels ($4,600,000) from appellant’s purchase price of the seven parce ls ($8,750,000) , to arrive at an aggregate value of the remaining five parcels of $4,150,0 00. {¶7} The Transcript of the Board of Revision hearing was filed and b riefs were filed by the parties. As memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on February 19, 2021, the

trial court affirmed the decision of the Board of Revision. {¶8} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignment of erro r on appeal: {¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN

IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF REVISION.”

I {¶10} Appellant, in its sole assignment of error, argues that the tri al court erred and abused its discretion in affirming the decision of the Boar d of Revision. We disagree. {¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 5717.05, a trial court may hear an appeal from the decision of the county's Board of Revision. R.C. 5717.05 requires more t han a mere review of the

decision of the Board of Revision. Black v. Bd. of Revision of Cuyahoga Cty. , 16 Ohio St.3d 11, 14, 475 N.E.2d 1264 (1985). In reviewing the Board's decision, “the common pleas court is to give the * * * decision no deference.” Lockhart Dev. Co. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25728, 2011–Ohio–5000, ¶ 8. “Under [R.C.]Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 5

5717.05, a common pleas court must ‘independently weigh and eva luate all evidence properly before it’ in order to ‘make an independent determinat ion concerning the valuation of the property at issue.’ “ Id. at ¶ 8, quoting Black, supra at 13, 475 N.E.2d 1264. “On the other hand, an appellate court should only distur b the trial court's independent judgment upon an abuse of discretion.” JRB Holdings, L.L.C. v. Wayne Cty. Bd. of Revision, 9th Dist. No. 05CA0048, 2006–Ohio–1042, ¶ 6. An abuse of discr etion means that the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unco nscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶12} Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution requires proper ty to be “taxed by uniform rule according to value.” “[T]he value or true value in money of any property is the amount for which that property would sell on the open marke t by a willing seller to a willing buyer. In essence, the value of property is the amount of money for which it may be exchanged, i.e., the sales price.” State ex rel. Park Inv. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals , 175 Ohio St. 410, 412, 195 N.E.2d 908 (1964).“). {¶13} While appellant argues that the trial Board of Revision erred i n not accepting the report and testimony of its appraiser, we note that the it is not required to adopt the appraisal methodology espoused by any expert or witness. See Youngstown Sheet & Tub Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. Of Revision , 66 Ohio St.2d 398, 422 N.E.2d 846, paragraph one of the syllabus (1981). {¶14} Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion w hen it affirmed the decision of the Board of Revision. Appellant argues that th e trial court completely rejected the report of the appraiser and that appellee failed t o present any testimony challenging the appraiser’s findings. We disagree.Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 6

{¶15} There was evidence before the trial court that appellant purcha sed seven contiguous parcels for $8,750,000 in December of 2019 and subse quently shortly thereafter sold two of the parcels for $4,600,000. As noted by appellee, this was documented by the relevant deeds and conveyance forms. Subtract ing $4,600,000 from $8,750,000 equals $4,150,000. {¶16} R.C. 5713.03 requires county auditors to: determine, as nearly as practicable, the true value of the fee simple estate, as if unencumbered * * *,” of real property. In so doin g, if the property “has been the subject of an ar m's length sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer within a reasonable length of time, * * * the aud itor may consider the sale price * * * to be the true value for taxation purposes. Id.

Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn v. Franklin Cty Bod. Of Revision. , 159 Ohio St.3d 283, 2020-Ohio-353, 150 N.E.3d 877, ¶ 28. {¶17} R.C. 5713.03 creates a rebuttable presumption that a property's recent sale price in an arm's-length transaction constitutes the best evide nce of the true monetary

value. Id. at ¶ 29, citing Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 150 Ohio St.3d 527, 2017-Ohio-4415, 83 N.E.3d 916, ¶ 33, citing Conalco, Inc. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of

Revision , 50 Ohio St.2d 129, 363 N.E.2d 722 (1977), paragraph one of th e syllabus, citing R.C. 5713.01. The court also recognizes “ ‘a companion presumpt ion 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, 327, 677 N.E.2d 1197 (1997).Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 7

{¶18} In the case sub judice, the trial court focused on the actual s ales price of the parcels. The Ohio Supreme Court has consistently held the b est evidence of true value for real estate taxation purposes is a recent sale in an arm's-length transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Amerimar Canton Office, L.L.C. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision, 5th Dist. Stark No.2014CA00162, 2015–Ohio–2290, ¶ 20 citing Zazworsky v. Licking Ct y. Bd. of Revision, 61 Ohio St.3d 604, 575 N.E.2d 842 (1991).

See also Hillard City School Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 53 Ohio St.3d 57, 558 N.E.2d 1170 (1990). {¶19} An arm's-length transaction is “ ‘one which encompasses bidding and negotiation on the open market between a ready , willing and abl e buyer, and a ready, willing and able seller, both being mentally competent, and nei ther acting under duress

or coercion.’ “ Walters v. Knox Cty. Bd. of Revision, 47 Ohio St.3d 23, 25, 546 N.E.2d 932, 935, (1989). “[A]n arm's-length sale is characterized by these elements: it is voluntary, i.e., without compulsion or duress; it generally takes place in an open market; and the parties act in their own self-interest.” Id. This showing may be made by, for example, furnishing a deed and a conveyance-fee statement. See Dauch v. Erie Cty. Bd. of

Revision , 149 Ohio St.3d 691, 2017-Ohio-1412, 77 N.E.3d 943, ¶ 17, citi ng Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision , 124 Ohio St.3d 27, 2009-Ohio5932, 918 N.E.2d 972, ¶ 28. {¶20} In the case sub judice, four exhibits were presented by appella nt to the Board of Revision regarding the sales, These exhibits are as fo llows: {¶21} Exhibit 1 – A Conveyance Fee Statement signed on December 4, 20 19 and filed on December 6, 2019 for the sale of the two Meijer Parcel s by ABC.Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 8

{¶22} Exhibit 2 – A Conveyance Fee Statement signed on December 4, 20 19 and filed on December 5, 2019 involving the original sale transacti on between Tam-O-Shanter to ABC for the seven parcels. {¶23} Exhibit 3- A Deed from Tam-O-Shanter to ABC signed on December 4, 2019 for the seven parcel sale which was recorded on December 5 , 2019. {¶24} Exhibit 4 – A Deed from ABC to Meijer signed on December 5, 201 9 for the sale of the two Meijer Parcels which was recorded on December 6 , 2019. {¶25} The trial court found that “[w]ith the presentation of this evi dence, rebuttable presumptions arise that the sales prices meet all of the requir ements of true value and

constitute the best evidence of the true value of the collectiv e properties. Thus, the burden shifts to Appellant to present evidence to the contrary.” {¶26} Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the trial court did consider the testimony and appraisal of appellant’s appr aiser, Daniel Miller. Rather, the trial court found that Miller’s opinions were not as persuasive as the actual sales th emselves and did not constitute superior evidence of value. The trial court found th at there were a number of

flaws contained within Miller’s appraisal. For example, the tri al court, as noted by appellee, noted that Miller was analyzing the ABC parcels in pi eces rather than as a whole

and that Miller used sales trans actions occurring in 2014, 2015 and 2015 as comps. The trial court further did not find persuasive Miller’s belief tha t it was proper to categorize some three of the five parcels as “residential” when they were listed in the Property Record Cards as “commercial” and all five parcels were zoned as commercial. Moreover, the trial court noted in a footnotes on page 10 of its decision that just eight months after the initial sales transactions involving appellant, appellant, in August of 2020, sold anStark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 9

additional eight acres of property that Miller had categorized as “Property Two type properties for $1,800,000 which would represent a value of $225 ,000 per acre. The trial court, in its decision, stated that “[t]his contrast is particu larly striking when one considers that Mr. Miller’s appraisal results in an average per-acre pric e of just $75,000 (a total of 43.49 acres with a taxable value of $3,253,000).” The trial co urt found that the actual sale price per acre was more persuasive than the “theoretical p er-acre valuation” suggested by Miller. {¶27} Based on the forgoing, we find that the trial court did not abu se its discretion in affirming the decision of the Board of Revision. The trial c ourt’s well-reasoned decision was not arbitrary, unconscionable or unreasonable. {¶28} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is, therefore, overruled. {¶29} Accordingly, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common P leas is

affirmed. By: Baldwin, P.J. Gwin, J. and Wise, John, J. concur.