[Cite as Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 212, 

2014-Ohio-1940.] 

DUBLIN CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE, v. FRANKLIN 

COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES; EAST BANK

CONDOMINIUMS II, L.L.C., APPELLANT. 

[Cite as Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 

139 Ohio St.3d 212, 2014-Ohio-1940.] 

On reconsideration—Taxation—Valuation of real property—Board of Tax 

Appeals correctly rejected bulk-appraisal valuation for condominium 

units—Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully in 

reinstating county auditor’s valuations—Cause remanded to Board of Tax 

Appeals for determination of value. 

(No. 2012-1432—Submitted January 7, 2014—Decided May 15, 2014.) 

APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2009-Q-1282 through 2009-Q-1301 

and 2009-Q-1408. 

ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 

____________________ 

 FRENCH, J. 

{¶ 1} East Bank Condominiums II, L.L.C. (“East Bank”), appeals the 

decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”), which reinstated the county 

auditor’s valuations for 21 condominium units owned by East Bank. Originally, a 

majority of this court rejected the auditor’s valuations and accepted the bulkappraisal valuation East Bank submitted. Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. 

Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-Ohio-4543, ___ N.E.3d 

___ (“Dublin City Schools I”), ¶ 27. Today we grant, in part, the Dublin City 

Schools Board of Education’s motion for reconsideration of our prior decision. 

We conclude that the BTA was correct in rejecting East Bank’s bulk-appraisal 

valuation for the units, but was incorrect in adopting the auditor’s valuations. 

Accordingly, we remand this matter to the BTA for an independent determination 

of value. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

Facts

{¶ 2} This case concerns the valuation of 21 units in East Bank’s 28-unit 

condominium complex. As of tax-lien date January 1, 2008, the 21 units were 

still under construction and unsold. The Franklin County Auditor valued each 

unit as a separate parcel. The aggregate value of the 21 units amounted to 

$8,139,300. The property-record cards do not indicate, however, whether the 

auditor properly took into account the unfinished state of the units when 

determining their values, as required by Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-06(G). 

{¶ 3} East Bank filed valuation complaints, challenging the auditor’s 

assessments for each of the 21 units. The school board filed countercomplaints, 

seeking to retain the auditor’s valuations. 

{¶ 4} At the board of revision (“BOR”) hearing, East Bank presented a 

report and testimony from appraiser Thomas Horner. After deducting the cost of 

finishing the units, Horner opined that the condominiums would yield “gross sale 

proceeds” of $6,492,294. Horner further determined that he had to value the units 

in bulk, because, in his view, all 21 condominiums were a “single economic unit.” 

Accordingly, Horner discounted his figure to arrive at a “net present-value” of 

$3,100,000, which is less than 48 percent of the predicted gross sale proceeds. 

According to Horner, this number represented what a single investor would pay 

for all 21 condominiums. The BOR adopted Horner’s $3,100,000 bulk valuation. 

{¶ 5} The school board appealed to the BTA. The school board argued 

for adoption of the auditor’s valuations, or, in the alternative, for adoption of 

Horner’s “gross sale proceeds” value of $6,492,294. At the BTA hearing, the 

school board did not put on any witnesses or evidence. Instead, it focused solely 

on attacking the validity of Horner’s appraisal. 

{¶ 6} The BTA found that Horner’s bulk-appraisal method was 

improper. Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, BTA 

Nos. 2009-Q-1282 through 2009-Q-1301 and 2009-Q-1408, 2012 WL 3166815, 
January Term, 2014 

3 

*5 (July 24, 2012). It subsequently ordered reinstatement of the auditor’s 

valuations, which totaled $8,139,300 for the 21 units. Id. at *6. 

{¶ 7} East Bank appealed the BTA’s decision to this court. East Bank 

argued in part that the BTA erred by rejecting Horner’s bulk-discount 

methodology and by not valuing the condominiums as a single economic unit. 

{¶ 8} On October 16, 2013, this court issued its original decision in this 

matter, reversing the BTA. Dublin City Schools I, 139 Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-

Ohio-4543, ___ N.E.3d ___. We held that the BTA erred in reverting to the 

auditor’s determinations of value. Id. at ¶ 27. The majority opinion then 

concluded by “adopt[ing] the only evidence of valuation contained in the record 

presented by East Bank through its expert, resulting in a valuation of $3,100,000.” 

Id. The majority opinion did not, however, consider whether the bulk-valuation 

approach, which was used by East Bank to arrive at the $3,100,000 figure, was 

appropriate. Id. at ¶ 27, fn. 1. 

Questions Presented 

{¶ 9} The school board has moved for reconsideration. Under 

S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02, we use our reconsideration authority to “correct decisions 

which, upon reflection, are deemed to have been made in error.” State ex rel. 

Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council, 75 Ohio St.3d 381, 383, 662 N.E.2d 339 

(1995). We will not, however, grant reconsideration when a movant seeks merely 

to reargue the case at hand. S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(B). 

{¶ 10} The school board raises three grounds for reconsideration. First, it 

argues that this court erred in holding that the school board had to offer additional 

evidence of value in order to meet its burden of proof at the BTA hearing. This 

court already thoroughly considered the burden-of-proof issue in our first 

decision. Dublin City Schools I at ¶ 14-16. The issue was the subject of much 

discussion and debate in this court’s competing opinions. See id. at ¶ 55-59. And 

all seven justices agreed, albeit for different reasons, that the school board needed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

to offer additional proof to the BTA. Id. at ¶ 16, 58-59. Therefore, the school 

board’s first argument does not call our attention either to an obvious error or an 

issue that this court did not consider. Accordingly, we decline to reconsider our 

opinion as to the school board’s first claim. 

{¶ 11} Second, the school board contends that this court erred factually in 

holding that the school board did not produce any evidence of its proposed value 

at the BTA hearing. Specifically, the school board claims that it produced 

evidence when it made an alternative argument to the BTA in support of Horner’s 

$6,492,294 “gross sale proceeds” figure. In other words, it contends that East 

Bank’s appraisal evidence was the school board’s valuation evidence. 

{¶ 12} We are not persuaded. Regardless of what the school board said to 

the BTA, the school board specifically argued against the $6,492,294 figure in its 

merit brief to this court. The school board supported only the auditor’s 

valuations. The school board cannot argue against the validity of the $6,492,294 

figure, and then claim that this court should have considered that figure as 

evidence of value. We therefore decline reconsideration as to the school board’s 

second claim. 

{¶ 13} Finally, the school board argues that the majority erred when it 

summarily accepted East Bank’s $3,100,000 bulk-sale valuation without 

considering the validity of that valuation. The school board contends that we 

should have remanded this case to the BTA for an independent determination of 

value. We agree. Our prior decision erred when it adopted East Bank’s bulk 

valuation without first conducting any analysis as to whether that valuation was 

accurate. This court can affirmatively accept a particular valuation only if it 

determines that the record supports that figure. Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga 

Cty. Bd. of Revision, 115 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-5237, 875 N.E.2d 913, ¶ 15. 

{¶ 14} Similarly, this court cannot reverse the BTA without first 

analyzing whether the BTA’s decision was correct. R.C. 5717.04. Our appellate 
January Term, 2014 

5 

power over the BTA is statutorily based. Id. We may reverse a decision of the 

BTA only upon determining “that such decision of the board is unreasonable or 

unlawful.” Id. In this case, the BTA explicitly rejected East Bank’s $3,100,000 

valuation on the grounds that Horner’s bulk-sale appraisal was legally improper. 

2012 WL 3166815 at *5. A majority of this court reversed the BTA and adopted 

Horner’s valuation. Dublin City Schools I, 139 Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-Ohio-4543, 

___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 27. But the majority did so without first determining that the 

BTA acted unreasonably or unlawfully in rejecting the bulk-sale valuation. Id. 

The majority reasoned instead that it “need not consider whether the bulk sale 

approach was appropriate in this instance.” Id. at ¶ 27, fn. 1. Both statute and 

precedent contradict this approach. 

{¶ 15} Accordingly, we grant the school board’s motion for 

reconsideration in part. We now consider whether the BTA erred in rejecting the 

bulk-sale valuation and whether remand would be appropriate. 

Analysis 

A. Horner’s Bulk-Value Appraisal Was Inappropriate 

{¶ 16} Taxing authorities must value condominium units as separate 

parcels, even when those units are contained in a single complex. R.C. 5311.11 

(“Each unit of a condominium property * * * is deemed a separate parcel for all 

purposes of taxation and assessment of real property.”) (Emphasis added.) 

Horner’s appraisal violates this legal mandate by valuing all 21 individual parcels 

in bulk as if they were “a single economic unit.” 

{¶ 17} In Eastcreek Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga Nos. 53150-53156, 1988 WL 1544 (Jan. 7, 1988), the Eighth District 

Court of Appeals relied on R.C. 5311.11 in considering and invalidating a similar 

bulk appraisal. In Eastcreek, the appellee owned 30 units in a condominium 

complex. The owner presented evidence from an appraiser who applied “a forty 

percent discount to each unit because all of them were owned by one entity.” Id.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

at *1. “The rationale for this discount was that the condominiums could not be 

sold individually because of market conditions” and could only be sold in bulk. 

Id. The court found that this bulk-discounting method violated R.C. 5311.11. As 

the court explained: 

Under the plain language of [R.C. 5311.11], each 

condominium unit is “deemed to be a separate parcel for all 

purposes of taxation and assessment of real property.” The board’s 

use of a volume discount was based on the likelihood that all of the 

appellee’s condominiums would be sold to one buyer. This 

method of valuation effectively treated the appellee’s 

condominiums as if they all were one parcel. Consequently, the use 

of this method of valuation was in conflict with R.C. 5311.11, and 

was unlawful. 

Id. at *2. 

{¶ 18} Horner’s appraisal fails for the same reasons. Just as in Eastcreek, 

Horner conducted a bulk valuation on the grounds that all of the condominiums 

were owned by one owner and “that owner [could] only sell all units at one time 

to one investor.” Horner admittedly treated the condominiums as “a single 

economic unit.” His methodology therefore runs afoul of R.C. 5311.11, as did the 

appraisal in Eastcreek. 

{¶ 19} East Bank relies on this court’s plurality decision in Pingue v. 

Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 87 Ohio St.3d 62, 717 N.E.2d 293 (1999), to 

support the notion that a bulk-condominium appraisal is permissible. Pingue, 

however, is fundamentally distinguishable because it involved an actual sale of 

condominiums, not an appraisal. And our decision made no mention of R.C. 

5311.11. Pingue does not, therefore, support East Bank’s position. 
January Term, 2014 

7 

{¶ 20} Pingue dealt with the valuation of 44 identical condominium units. 

Id. at 62. The property owner had purchased all 44 units for $2,530,000, or 

$57,500 per unit. Id. He presented uncontroverted evidence that the purchase 

was an arms-length transaction and argued that the sale price of $57,500 per unit 

should establish the taxable value for each parcel. Id. at 63. The BTA rejected 

the sale price and instead looked to appraisal evidence to determine the value of 

each parcel. Id. This court reversed the BTA. We held that under former R.C. 

5713.03, we were required to use the allocated sale price to establish the true 

taxable value of the properties. Id. at 64-65. 

{¶ 21} Pingue does not support the notion that the BTA can accept bulkappraisal evidence when determining the taxable value of condominium units. 

Pingue merely supports the notion that the law favors the use of a sale price over 

competing appraisal evidence. In this case, there is no actual sale price to 

consider. East Bank presented only an appraisal, and that appraisal violated R.C. 

5311.11. Pingue is therefore inapposite. 

{¶ 22} In addition to being legally impermissible, East Bank’s appraisal 

was also inconsistent with the record. As we previously noted, Horner testified 

that the condominiums constituted a single economic unit because East Bank 

owned all the units and could only sell them in bulk to a single investor. He 

further implied that the highest and best use of the condominiums was as a single 

investment property, rather than individual, owner-occupied residences. 

{¶ 23} The record contradicts Horner’s conclusions. First, despite his 

testimony, Horner’s own appraisal report lists the highest and best use of the 

properties as “[o]wner-occupied residential condominiums.” East Bank partner 

George Babyak also confirmed that East Bank planned the condominium 

development for individual residential use. Babyak further testified that although 

a few out-of-state developers informally approached East Bank about purchasing 

all 21 units, East Bank rejected these bulk-purchase offers, preferring to market 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8 

and sell the condominiums individually. By late 2011, East Bank had sold 14 of 

the 21 units. No bulk sale ever occurred. 

{¶ 24} Horner’s appraisal method, which “results in a bulk purchase value 

and represents what the owner would sell all of the units [for] to a single 

purchaser,” is inconsistent with these facts. The highest and best use of the 

condominiums was as owner-occupied residential units. East Bank continuously 

marketed and sold the condominiums individually. At no point did East Bank 

ever list the 21 units as a bulk-sale investment property. It was therefore 

inappropriate for Horner to value the condominiums in bulk as if East Bank could 

sell them only to a single investor. The facts do not support the appraisal’s 

“single economic unit” premise. 

{¶ 25} Finally, East Bank’s appraisal is also invalid because it does not 

comport with the statutory purposes of real-property taxation. County auditors 

are charged with assessing the “true value” of real property. R.C. 5713.01(B). 

“True value” means either the amount the property recently sold for on the open 

market or the amount of an appraisal predicting what that sale price would be. 

Ohio Adm.Code 5703-25-05(A); Cummins Property Servs., L.L.C. v. Franklin 

Cty. Bd. of Revision, 117 Ohio St.3d 516, 2008-Ohio-1473, 885 N.E.2d 222, ¶ 23; 

State ex rel. Park Invest. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 175 Ohio St. 410, 412, 195 

N.E.2d 908 (1964). 

{¶ 26} East Bank’s appraisal does not assess the “true value” of the 

condominium parcels for taxation purposes. Instead of predicting what the units 

would sell for on the open market, the appraisal predicted the units’ “net present” 

investment value. It began by valuing the condominiums “in their present 

condition on a retail basis if sold to individuals.” It then deducted “sales costs” 

such as commissions, legal fees, holding costs, and property taxes. Next, it 

applied a 20 percent time-value-of-money discount to account for the absorption 

rate of the condominiums. The appraisal’s final figure—$3,100,000—represents 
January Term, 2014 

9 

“a 48% discount from the retail price or total anticipated sales income.” 

Essentially, East Bank’s appraisal predicted actual sale prices and then discounted 

those sale prices to arrive at a cash-in-hand valuation. 

{¶ 27} The BTA was therefore correct in rejecting East Bank’s appraisal 

on the grounds that it “arrives at an investment value, rather than real market 

value.” Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn., 2012 WL 3166815, at *4, citing M/I 

Homes of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision, BTA No. 2009-V3796, 2010 WL 3724159 (Sept. 21, 2010). As the BTA pointed out, this 

methodology may have been appropriate for a financial institution making lending 

decisions, but it was not an appropriate way to appraise real property for taxation 

purposes. 2012 WL 3166815 at *5 (“while it may be true that, for purposes of 

appraising properties for financing purposes, it is appropriate to apply a bulk 

discount, the present matter concerns appraisal for tax valuation purposes”). The 

appraisal openly deviated from finding the true values, or anticipated sale prices, 

of the condominiums. Rather, East Bank proffered an investment value that was 

significantly less than the predicted sale prices of the units. We cannot sanction 

this approach; the law mandates that we use the predicted sale prices themselves 

as the true taxable value of the properties. Cummins at ¶ 23; Ohio Adm.Code 

5703-25-05(A). 

{¶ 28} Finally, we acknowledge Horner’s testimony that the appraisal’s 

methodology comported with professional FIRREA1

 and USPAP2 guidelines. 

Those guidelines, however, are ultimately irrelevant in this context. Industry 

standards do not establish the legal parameters of real-property assessment for 

taxation purposes. See, e.g., HIN, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 138 

Ohio St.3d 223, 2014-Ohio-523, 5 N.E.3d 637, ¶ 23. 

 

1. Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. 

2. Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

{¶ 29} For all these reasons, the BTA did not err in rejecting East Bank’s 

bulk-value-appraisal methodology in this case. The methodology contradicted 

R.C. 5311.11, the facts of this case, and the statutory goals of real-property 

assessment. 

B. Rather Than Revert to the Auditor’s Valuations, the BTA Should Have 

Independently Determined the Value of the Properties 

{¶ 30} After it considered and rejected East Bank’s arguments, the BTA 

reinstated the auditor’s valuations for each parcel. Dublin City Schools Bd. of 

Edn., 2012 WL 3166815, at *6. In this court’s prior opinion, we held that the 

BTA erred in reverting to the auditor’s valuations. Dublin City Schools I, 139 

Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-Ohio-4543, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 26. That portion of our 

prior decision remains unchanged. 

{¶ 31} Rather than adopt the auditor’s valuations, the BTA should have 

conducted its own analysis and made an independent determination as to the 

taxable values of the properties. See, e.g., Vandalia-Butler City Schools Bd. of 

Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 Ohio St.3d 291, 2011-Ohio-5078, 

958 N.E.2d 131, ¶ 26 (“When there is sufficient evidence to permit the BTA to 

perform an independent valuation * * * the BTA must do so”); Colonial Village,

Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 114 Ohio St.3d 493, 2007-Ohio-4641, 

873 N.E.2d 298, ¶ 23-25. If necessary, the BTA may order the presentation of 

additional evidence to assist with this determination. R.C. 5717.01; Columbus 

City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 90 Ohio St.3d 564, 

567, 740 N.E.2d 276 (2001) (remanding to the BTA for an independent 

determination of value and noting that under R.C. 5717.01, the BTA “ ‘may order 

the hearing of additional evidence, and may make such investigation concerning 

the appeal as it deems proper’ ”). Accordingly, we remand this case to the BTA 

so that it may conduct an independent valuation for the properties in question. 

See Colonial Village at ¶ 1 (ordering remand for the BTA to conduct an 
January Term, 2014 

11 

independent valuation of the property after the BTA had unlawfully upheld the 

auditor’s valuation); Vandalia-Butler at ¶ 27 (remanding because the BTA did not 

conduct an independent analysis of value). 

Conclusion 

{¶ 32} Upon partial reconsideration of our prior decision, we find that the 

BTA correctly rejected East Bank’s bulk-value appraisal for the 21 condominium 

units and we therefore affirm that portion of the BTA’s decision. East Bank’s 

appraisal violated real-property-assessment statutes and was otherwise 

unsupported by the facts in the record. The BTA erred, however, in reverting to 

the auditor’s determinations of value. The BTA should have independently 

determined the taxable values of the 21 properties in question. We remand this 

case to the BTA so that it may perform that independent valuation. 

Motion for reconsideration granted in part, 

decision affirmed in part 

and reversed in part, 

and cause remanded. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and LANZINGER and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent in part. 

____________________ 

 O’DONNELL, J., dissenting in part. 

{¶ 33} I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reconsider 

whether the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) erred in rejecting the bulk sale 

valuation and to remand the matter to the BTA for an independent determination 

of value. Here, East Bank presented expert evidence of a $3,100,000 valuation, 

and the Dublin City Schools Board of Education failed to present any evidence 

supporting a different valuation and thus failed to meet its burden of proof on 

appeal to the BTA. Moreover, because evidence in the record negated the 

auditor’s valuation of the property, the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

by reverting to that valuation instead of conducting its own independent valuation 

based upon the evidence in the record. Accordingly, I would adopt East Bank’s 

evidence and establish the 2008 valuation as $3,100,000. 

Factual Background 

{¶ 34} This case involves the property valuation of 21 condominium units 

that remained unfinished to varying degrees as of the 2008 tax lien date. The 

Franklin County auditor assessed the true value of each of the 21 units and 

determined that the aggregate value of the units for the tax year 2008 was 

$8,139,300. East Bank filed complaints with the board of revision challenging 

the auditor’s valuation of the property, and the board of education filed 

countercomplaints seeking retention of the auditor’s valuation. 

{¶ 35} At the board of revision hearing, the only evidence regarding 

valuation came from East Bank. In addition to the testimony of East Bank’s 

managing partner, East Bank presented the testimony and appraisal report of 

Thomas Horner, who opined that the 21 units had a “net present market value” or 

“as-is value” of $3,100,000. To arrive at this value, Horner conducted a 

comparable sales analysis and then deducted the estimated cost to finish the 

remaining units. This analysis yielded “gross sale proceeds” of $6,492,294. 

Because he considered the 21 units as a “single economic unit” due to the facts 

that they are “owned by one owner” and “[t]hat owner can only sell all units at 

one time to one investor,” he applied a “bulk discount” to arrive at an estimated 

value of $3,100,000. 

{¶ 36} Although counsel for the school board cross-examined East Bank’s 

managing partner, the school board did not present any witnesses or additional 

evidence regarding the value of the property at the board of revision hearing. 

{¶ 37} The board of revision adopted Horner’s valuation of $3,100,000 as 

the total fair market value for the 21 units, noting, “We were given no additional 

information on behalf of the county complainant school board in this matter, and 
January Term, 2014 

13 

* * * we recognize Mr. Horner as being an expert in the area of real estate 

appraisal.” 

{¶ 38} The school board appealed the board of revision’s decision to the 

BTA. At the BTA hearing, however, the school board failed to present any 

witnesses or any evidence supporting its valuation or the auditor’s valuation. East 

Bank presented the testimony of its managing partner and Horner, who offered 

additional data from condominium sales occurring after the tax lien date and 

retrospectively concluded that a revised cash flow analysis yielded a value of 

$2,900,000. 

{¶ 39} After its review, the BTA reversed the board of revision’s 

adjustments and reinstated the auditor’s valuation of the 21 units, determining that 

Horner’s use of the bulk discount was improper and concluding that East Bank 

“failed to present competent and probative evidence to either this board or the 

BOR in support of its requested decreases in value.” Dublin City Schools Bd. of 

Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, BTA Nos. 2009-Q-1282 through 2009-Q1301 and 2009-Q-1408, 2012 WL 3166815, *6 (July 24, 2012). 

Dublin City Schools I 

{¶ 40} In our prior decision, we recognized that “[w]hen a party appeals a 

board of revision’s decision to the BTA, the appellant, whether it be a taxpayer or 

a board of education, has the burden to prove its right to a reduction or increase in 

the board of revision’s determination of value.” Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. 

v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 193, 2013-Ohio-4543, ___ 

N.E.3d ___, ¶ 15 (“Dublin City Schools I”), citing Columbus City School Dist. 

Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 90 Ohio St.3d 564, 566, 740 N.E.2d 

276 (2001). We further explained that when the board of revision adopted East 

Bank’s valuation, the burden of presenting “competent and probative evidence” 

supporting a different valuation shifted to the board of education on appeal to the 

BTA. Id. at ¶ 16. However, we determined that the board of education failed to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14 

meet its burden in this case, because it did not present any evidence to support its 

own valuation or the auditor’s valuation. Id. 

{¶ 41} Moreover, we determined that “the BTA’s reinstatement of the 

auditor’s valuation was ‘not justified, because the taxpayer had presented 

evidence contrary to the auditor’s determination to the board of revision.’ ” Id. at 

¶ 21, quoting Bedford Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 115 Ohio 

St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-5237, 875 N.E.2d 913, ¶ 12. Specifically, we noted that 

“there is no evidence indicating that the auditor accounted for the unfinished state 

of the units or the units’ depreciation in value due to market conditions, and the 

historical sales evidence provided by East Bank further contradicts the auditor’s 

valuation.” Id. Thus, we concluded that “[w]hen confronted with such clear 

evidence negating the auditor’s valuation, the BTA acted unreasonably and 

unlawfully in adopting the auditor’s valuation rather than determining the taxable 

value of the property.” Id. at ¶ 26. 

{¶ 42} Determining that the school board did not present any evidence 

before the board of revision or the BTA, that the evidence in the record negated 

the auditor’s valuation, and that the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully in 

failing to conduct its own independent valuation despite sufficient evidence in the 

record to do so, we reversed the decision of the BTA and established the 2008 

valuation as $3,100,000 in accordance with the only evidence of valuation 

contained in the record as presented by East Bank’s expert. Id. at ¶ 27. We 

further explained, “We need not consider whether the bulk sale approach was 

appropriate in this instance because we determine that the BTA acted 

unreasonably and unlawfully in not conducting its own independent valuation of 

the property taking into account the unfinished state of some, if not all, of the 

units, the depreciation in value, and the sales history.” Id. at fn. 1. 

 
January Term, 2014 

15 

Reconsideration 

{¶ 43} Instead of determining whether the BTA erred in rejecting the bulk 

sale valuation and remanding the cause, I would reinstate the valuation of 

$3,100,000 based upon East Bank’s evidence of value and the board of 

education’s failure to present any evidence supporting a different valuation. 

{¶ 44} In Bedford, 115 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-5237, 875 N.E.2d 913, 

a case involving the valuation of an improved parcel of land that was one of 

several parcels in a strip mall, id. at ¶ 1, we concluded that the BTA’s 

reinstatement of the auditor’s valuation was not justified, because the property 

owner presented evidence contradicting the auditor’s determination to the board 

of revision and the school board’s evidence before the BTA “did not amount to 

independent evidence of value that would undermine the BOR’s determination” 

nor did it “support reinstating the auditor’s valuation.” Id. at ¶ 12-13. We further 

explained that we did “not need to remand the cause to the BTA, because the 

BOR’s determination comports with the evidence in the record.” Id. at ¶ 15. 

{¶ 45} Similarly, in my view, we do not need to remand this matter to the 

BTA, because East Bank provided expert evidence supporting the value of 

$3,100,000 and the school board had the opportunity—and the burden—to present 

evidence supporting a different valuation on appeal to the BTA but failed to do 

so. Considering that the parties had “ample opportunity to present evidence,” 

they should not be given another chance to present additional evidence on 

remand. Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 

124 Ohio St.3d 27, 2009-Ohio-5932, 918 N.E.2d 972, ¶ 34 (vacating the BTA’s 

decision and remanding for a determination whether the sale was “recent” in light 

of the entire record but ordering that “the BTA shall not take additional evidence 

on remand,” as “the parties have had ample opportunity to present evidence”); see 

generally HealthSouth Corp. v. Levin, 121 Ohio St.3d 282, 2009-Ohio-584, 903 

N.E.2d 1179, ¶ 36 (vacating the BTA’s decision and remanding the case to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

16 

BTA for it to “complete its fact-finding” but ordering that “[b]ecause the parties 

have been afforded ample opportunity to present evidence, the BTA shall not take 

additional evidence on remand”). 

{¶ 46} Moreover, the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully in 

reinstating the auditor’s valuation, because the evidence in the record contradicted 

that valuation and there was sufficient evidence in the record from which the BTA 

could independently determine value. Dublin City Schools I, 139 Ohio St.3d 193, 

2013-Ohio-4543, ___ N.E.2d ___, at ¶ 21, 26. The BTA should have conducted 

an independent determination of value based on the evidence in the record in the 

first instance, and for that reason I dissent from the majority’s decision to 

“remand this case to the BTA so that it may conduct an independent valuation for 

the properties in question.” Majority opinion at ¶ 31. A remand in this situation 

prolongs even further the determination of value in a case involving a 2008 tax 

lien date. 

{¶ 47} Accordingly, I would reverse the determination of the BTA and, in 

light of the school board’s failure to satisfy its burden and provide evidence 

supporting a different valuation, I would establish the 2008 valuation at 

$3,100,000 in accordance with the evidence presented in this case. 

 PFEIFER and KENNEDY, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion. 

____________________ 

 Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., Mark H. Gillis, Jeffrey A. Rich, and 

Karol C. Fox, for appellee Dublin City Schools Board of Education. 

 Zeiger, Tigges & Little, L.L.P., Marion H. Little Jr., and Matthew S. 

Zeiger, for appellant. 

_________________________