[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Steak ‘n Shake, Inc. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4836.] 

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. 2015-OHIO-4836

STEAK ‘N SHAKE, INC., N.K.A. STEAK ‘N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC., APPELLANT,

v. WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Steak ‘n Shake, Inc. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision, 

Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4836.] 

Taxation—Real property valuation—Sale prices of leased properties generally 

must be adjusted when determining the value of comparable unleased 

properties. 

(No. 2014-0744—Submitted July 7, 2015—Decided November 25, 2015.) 

APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2010-3527. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} This real-property-valuation case concerns the proper valuation for 

tax year 2009 of a Steak ‘n Shake restaurant located in Warren County. 

Appellant, Steak ‘n Shake, Inc., n.k.a. Steak ‘n Shake Operations, Inc., filed a 

complaint seeking a reduction of the value assigned to its property; appellee 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Warren County Board of Revision (“BOR”) retained appellee auditor’s original 

valuation for the property. At the hearing before the Board of Tax Appeals 

(“BTA”), the property owner presented an appraisal report and testimony from an 

appraiser, while the county presented an appraisal prepared by an employee of the 

county’s valuation consultant. The BTA adopted the county’s valuation, and 

Steak ‘n Shake has appealed, challenging both the competency and the probative 

force of the county’s valuation of the property. 

{¶ 2} Under the circumstances, we must reject Steak ‘n Shake’s 

competency arguments. We do, however, agree with Steak ‘n Shake that the BTA 

erred in its uncritical acceptance of the county appraiser’s reliance on encumbered 

comparable properties in determining the value of the subject property, which is 

occupied by its owner. We therefore reverse the decision of the BTA, and we 

remand for a determination of value based on the property owner’s appraisal 

and/or any other evidence in the record. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 3} At issue is a 1.5-acre parcel improved with a 3,496-square-foot 

restaurant, a Steak ‘n Shake, visible from I-71 on the northern outskirts of 

Cincinnati. It was built in 1995 and is occupied by the owner-operator. An 

additional improvement is the parking lot with space for 66 cars. 

The BOR proceedings 

{¶ 4} On March 17, 2010, Steak ‘n Shake filed a complaint seeking a 

reduction for tax year 2009 from the auditor’s valuation of $1,259,590 to 

$832,000. The Mason City School District Board of Education (“school board”) 

filed a countercomplaint on April 8, seeking retention of the auditor’s valuation. 

{¶ 5} On October 19, 2010, the BOR held a hearing at which Steak ‘n 

Shake presented an owner’s opinion of value. The owner’s opinion consisted of 

an income approach arriving at a valuation of $778,000 and a sales-comparison 

approach concluding a value of $822,000; the owner suggested a reconciliation 
January Term, 2015 

3

value of $800,000. Counsel explained the opinion at the BOR hearing without 

testimony from the owner. 

{¶ 6} At the hearing, the auditor’s consultant, Ed Rinck, offered his 

opinion that a different capitalization rate ought to be used under the income 

approach: he arrived at a value of $1,082,790, which the board adopted. 

{¶ 7} Steak ‘n Shake appealed to the BTA. At the BTA hearing on 

February 19, 2013, Steak ‘n Shake and the county both presented appraisal reports 

along with testimony of the appraisers. 

The property owner’s appraisal 

{¶ 8} Steak ‘n Shake presented the appraisal report and testimony of 

commercial real estate appraiser W. Shaun Wilkins, a longtime state-certified 

appraiser and member of the Appraisal Institute with extensive experience 

appraising commercial properties, including some in Warren County. 

{¶ 9} Wilkins determined that “[t]he restaurant building is concluded to be 

the highest and best use” of the property as improved. Deciding that the cost 

approach was not applicable because of the size and age of the property, Wilkins 

proceeded to evaluate four comparable sales in the Cincinnati area while 

confining his analysis to sales before the lien date on the theory that such 

information would be within the knowledge of market participants on the lien 

date. Wilkins adjusted the sale prices of the comparable properties and adopted 

the average, $180 per square foot, to determine the value for the subject property 

under the sales-comparison approach: $629,000. 

{¶ 10} Under the income approach, Wilkins identified seven comparable 

properties in the Cincinnati area, all of which were leased, and examined the 

leases and premises; four of the leased comparable properties were Steak ‘n 

Shakes. Rents ranged from $14.73 to $24.93 per square foot, and Wilkins located 

the property at issue in the upper part of the range at $22 per square foot, with a 

potential gross income of $76,912 for the subject property. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 11} Wilkins then allowed deductions for loss because of vacancy and 

for minor expenses on the assumption of leasing on a net basis. At the end, net 

income was calculated to be $66,692. Using both market-comparison and bandof-investment methods, Wilkins derived a capitalization rate of 9.11 percent. 

When the income, $66,692, was divided by the capitalization rate, .0911, the 

value of the property was calculated to be $732,075, which Wilkins rounded to 

$732,000. 

{¶ 12} Finally, Wilkins reconciled the two approaches by averaging the 

two values to $680,500, rounded to $680,000. 

The county’s appraisal 

{¶ 13} The Warren County auditor and the BOR presented the report and 

testimony of Edward Rinck, an employee of Ward & Associates, the firm hired by 

Warren County to perform mass-appraisal services for the auditor. Rinck had 

prepared a report that looked to three properties allegedly comparable for both 

sale and rent values. Each of the properties was a restaurant subject to lease that 

had sold: an Arby’s in Lebanon built in 1987 that sold in October 2010 for 

$775,000; a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Middletown built in 1985 that sold in 

June 2012 for $760,000; and an Applebee’s in the same township as the subject 

property built in 1997 that sold in September 2010 for $1,473,742. 

{¶ 14} Rinck made some adjustments for the size and quality of the 

construction of the properties; no adjustments were made for the time of the sales 

(during recovery from a recession as opposed to the January 1, 2009 lien date for 

the subject property) or for the fact that they were subject to a lease, which could 

affect the sale price and rent. Rinck derived a value of $996,000 from the sales 

comparison. 

{¶ 15} All three comparable properties were subject to long-term leases, 

and Rinck used the lease values for the income method. The Arby’s transaction 

in 2010 was a sale-leaseback with rent at $27.66 per square foot; the Kentucky 
January Term, 2015 

5

Fried Chicken was sold subject to a lease that ran from January 2007 to October 

2016 with rent at $19.36 per square foot; and the Applebee’s was sold subject to a 

lease that began September 2010 with rent at $24.42 per square foot. 

{¶ 16} Rinck made adjustments to the lease rates, then applied a 

capitalization rate of 8.75 percent, which he apparently extracted from the values 

used for the three comparable properties, that is, he divided the income by the sale 

price to obtain the capitalization rate for each property, then averaged them to 

8.75 percent for the property at issue. 

{¶ 17} Under the sales-comparison method, Rinck derived a value of 

$996,000, and under the income method, Rinck derived a value of $998,000. He 

also averaged the two figures as his method of reconciliation: he concluded the 

property value was $997,000. 

The BTA’s decision 

{¶ 18} On April 15, 2014, the BTA issued its decision. The board began 

by noting that the two appraisals stood in conflict concerning “the proper 

elements to be considered in the income approach and the proximity of the 

transfers of the sale comparable to the tax lien date.” BTA No. 2010-3527, 2014 

Ohio Tax LEXIS 2425, 4-5 (Apr. 15, 2014). Evaluating those conflicts, the board 

stated: “[W]e find that Rinck’s report more accurately reflects the nature of the 

subject property and its optimal location in [a] highly visible and trafficked area.” 

Id. at 5. By contrast, the BTA found that Wilkins’s comparable properties were 

less reliable, given that the earlier owners had stopped doing business at those 

locations, that the properties had had extended stays on the market, and that they 

currently “were in a second generation use.” Id. In a footnote, the BTA brushed 

aside Steak ‘n Shake’s objections to Rinck’s qualifications to testify, finding that 

he was “competent to provide testimony as to the valuation of the subject 

property.” Id. at 4, fn. 2. Accordingly, the board adopted Rinck’s valuation, 

$997,000, as the property value for tax year 2009. Steak ‘n Shake then appealed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

STEAK ‘N SHAKE’S OBJECTIONS TO THE COMPETENCY AND LACK OF 

INDEPENDENCE OF RINCK’S APPRAISAL ARE REJECTED

{¶ 19} Steak ‘n Shake impugns Rinck’s qualifications to have offered an 

opinion at the BTA. Additionally, Steak ‘n Shake argues that because Rinck is an 

employee of the county’s mass-appraisal consultant, he lacks the independence 

necessary to qualify to give expert testimony before the BTA. 

Admissibility issues lie within the BTA’s discretion as fact-finder 

{¶ 20} “Ordinarily, testimony as to property value is not competent and 

admissible unless it is the professional opinion of an expert.” Worthington City 

Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 140 Ohio St.3d 248, 2014-

Ohio-3620, 17 N.E.3d 537, ¶ 18. We have regarded the proper use of expert 

opinions as lying within the sound discretion of the BTA. We defer to the BTA’s 

determination of the competency as well as to the board’s determination of the 

credibility of the evidence presented to it. 

{¶ 21} Thus, when confronted with the contention that a witness could not 

qualify as an expert because he was not a state-certified appraiser, we consulted 

the certification statute and concluded that “an individual may testify before the 

BTA about the appraisal of real estate without being certified under R.C. Chapter 

4763 if he is otherwise qualified, as determined by the BTA.” N. Olmsted Bd. of 

Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 75 Ohio St.3d 595, 597, 664 N.E.2d 1285 

(1996). 

{¶ 22} As for whether the appraiser must be independent of the interests of 

the parties, we have treated the matter as within the BTA’s discretion as factfinder. In Witt Co. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 61 Ohio St.3d 155, 158, 573 

N.E.2d 661 (1991), an employee of the property owner’s consultant, which was 

entitled to a fee only if a reduction was ordered, presented an appraisal that the 

BTA rejected on the grounds that it was not independent. On appeal, this court 

affirmed the BTA’s disposition not based on an analysis of the independence of 
January Term, 2015 

7

the appraisal evidence but instead on the ground that the decision to exclude the 

appraisal fell within the BTA’s general discretion to determine a witness’s 

credibility. Similarly, in Loveland Pines v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 66 

Ohio St.3d 387, 388, 613 N.E.2d 191 (1993), we affirmed the BTA’s reliance on 

an appraisal by an employee of the county auditor’s office, which the property 

owner objected to because of the employee’s “lack of education and outside 

experience.” We stated, “ ‘All these facts bear on the witness’ credibility, which 

is within the sound discretion of the BTA.’ ” Id., quoting Witt Co. at 158. 

No objection was lodged to the admissibility of Rinck’s opinion, and the BTA’s 

consideration of it did not constitute plain error 

{¶ 23} We have also held that when an objection to evidence could have 

been made before the tax tribunals but was not, a plain-error standard applies on 

appeal. See Plain Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 

Ohio St.3d 230, 2011-Ohio-3362, 957 N.E.2d 268, ¶ 20-21; Sapina v. Cuyahoga 

Cty. Bd. of Revision, 136 Ohio St.3d 188, 2013-Ohio-3028, 992 N.E.2d 1117, 

¶ 17. We conclude that there is no basis for a finding of plain error as to any of 

the waived objections here. 

{¶ 24} Rinck is an experienced appraiser who had been in the profession 

for 36 years at the time of hearing and who was employed by the consultant used 

by Warren County. His testimony has been accepted in other contexts, as the 

county argued. Specifically, he has testified several times before the BTA, and 

one court of appeals has noted that he had been providing appraisals for years; 

that same court also found that the board of revision and the common pleas court 

acted within their discretion in finding his testimony to be credible. Eastbrook 

Farms, Inc. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision, 194 Ohio App.3d 193, 2011-Ohio2103, 955 N.E.2d 418, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.). 

{¶ 25} Rinck’s background suffices to establish that there was no plain 

error in the BTA’s considering his report and his testimony as evidence of value. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

{¶ 26} Nor is Rinck’s alleged noncompliance with Uniform Standards of 

Professional Appraisal Practice plain error upon which we may predicate reversal. 

Although compliance with appraisal-industry standards may in other contexts be 

mandatory, nothing makes it mandatory before the BTA—compliance with those 

standards goes to the weight and probative character to be ascribed to the 

appraisal. 

RINCK’S SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY CONCERNING HIGHEST-AND-BEST-USE 

WAS ADMISSIBLE

{¶ 27} Counsel for Steak ‘n Shake did object to Rinck testifying as to the 

highest-and-best-use and location analyses, neither of which was discussed in 

Rinck’s appraisal report. Steak ‘n Shake argues in its brief that the testimony 

violated discovery rules as well as the BTA’s own rules regarding disclosure of 

expert reports: because the report was skimpy and fleshed out only at the hearing, 

counsel did not properly have the opportunity to prepare. But the BTA’s rules, 

the Civil Rules, and the case law did not establish a legal right to have the 

testimony excluded. 

{¶ 28} At the time the BTA conducted its hearing in this matter, the 

BTA’s rules required generally that witnesses and exhibits be identified 14 days 

before the hearing. Former Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-15(I), 2008-2009 Ohio 

Monthly Record 2-2562, effective Feb. 1, 2009. This requirement was made 

specifically applicable to expert witnesses and their written reports. Former Ohio 

Admin.Code 5717-1-11(A)(5), id. The rules also provided that discovery be 

conducted in accordance with the Civil Rules to the extent that they are not 

inconsistent with other board rules. Former Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-11(A), id. at 

2-2561. 

{¶ 29} These cited provisions furnish no grounds for Steak ’n Shake to 

establish a legal right to have had Rinck’s testimony excluded. It appears that 

Rinck was timely identified and that Rinck’s report was timely disclosed. The 
January Term, 2015 

9

supplemental testimony at the hearing does not violate the rules, and remedying 

any secondary violation of their letter or spirit lay within the BTA’s sound 

discretion. Moreover, the availability of discovery afforded Steak ‘n Shake the 

right to depose Rinck to question him about the extent of his testimony. 

{¶ 30} Steak ‘n Shake fares no better under the case law cited in its brief. 

It cites Shumaker v. Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc., 28 Ohio St.3d 367, 370, 504 

N.E.2d 44 (1986), abrogated on other grounds by State v. D’Ambrosio, 67 Ohio 

St.3d 185, 191, 616 N.E.2d 909 (1993), for the general proposition that timely 

discovery of expert testimony is important to preserve the right of effective crossexamination—but nothing in the case supports the legal right, as asserted by the 

property owner here, to exclude certain testimony. In Shumaker, allowing the 

expert testimony was an abuse of discretion because no notice had been given that 

Shumaker claimed that he had cancer. The cancer diagnosis was not made until 

after he had filed an action claiming that his pulmonary and respiratory illnesses 

were linked to chemicals in his workplace. That situation is not present here, 

since Rinck’s report, though less than complete under usual standards, plainly 

gives notice of the substantive nature of his opinion. 

{¶ 31} Steak ‘n Shake argues that because highest-and-best-use testimony 

is an essential part of appraising the market value of real property, the county had 

a duty to supplement discovery to notify it of Rinck’s opinions. This claim fails 

because there is nothing particularly surprising about Rinck’s highest-and-bestuse testimony in light of his written report. Rinck’s highest-and-best-use 

testimony consisted of his affirmative answer to the following question: “In your 

opinion, is the use as a restaurant the highest and best use of the subject 

property?” Given Rinck’s use in the written report of sales and rent for three 

comparable properties that were all identified as restaurant properties, Steak ‘n 

Shake cannot legitimately claim to be surprised. The testimony was reasonably 

implied by Rinck’s choice of comparable properties. Because there is no ambush 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

present here, there is insufficient ground to exclude the testimony on the theory 

that a discovery violation occurred. Compare Shumaker at 371 (reversing 

judgment when undisclosed physician testimony had been admitted because 

“[t]here appears to be an element of ‘ambush’ in the present case”). 

{¶ 32} Although Rinck’s written report may fall short of the standard for 

matters that ought to be addressed in such a report, we conclude that Steak ‘n 

Shake has not demonstrated reversible error based on its objection to Rinck’s 

highest-and-best-use testimony. 

RINCK’S RELIANCE ON UNADJUSTED SALE PRICES OF ENCUMBERED 

COMPARABLE PROPERTIES WAS IMPROPER, SINCE THE SPECIAL-PURPOSE 

DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY

{¶ 33} Although we reject its procedural objections, Steak ‘n Shake does 

advance a valid objection to the Rinck appraisal on substantive grounds. Quite 

simply, Rinck’s appraisal failed to adjust the sales prices of the comparable 

properties to remove the effect that long-term leases would have had on those 

prices. Since the property at issue was unencumbered by a lease, it would likely 

have sold for less. 

{¶ 34} The county and amicus curiae, the County Auditors’ Association of 

Ohio, rely on Meijer Stores Ltd. Partnership v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 122 

Ohio St.3d 447, 2009-Ohio-3479, 912 N.E.2d 560, to oppose this point. By doing 

so, they underscore the value-in-use issue, because Meijer’s analysis depended 

upon the fact that one of the competing appraisals recognized that the special 

adaptation of the property to Meijer’s use affected its value. Id. at ¶ 24-26. No 

special adaptation has been established here. 
January Term, 2015 

11 

Because the encumbrance of a lease may affect market value, sale prices of leased 

properties generally must be adjusted when determining the value of comparable 

unleased properties 

{¶ 35} Amicus curiae points out that “this Court has repeatedly held that 

sales do not need to be adjusted to reflect beneficial lease terms.” Amicus curiae 

then cites a parade of cases: 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; AEI Net 

Lease Income & Growth Fund v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision, 119 Ohio St.3d 563, 

2008-Ohio-5203, 895 N.E.2d 830; and most recently, HIN, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga 

Cty. Bd. of Revision, 138 Ohio St.3d 223, 2014-Ohio-523, 5 N.E.3d 637, ¶ 19-20 

(“HIN claims that the 2004 sales price represents the value of the leased fee, not 

the unencumbered fee simple. It argues that we must value property in its 

unencumbered state. We have rejected this argument numerous times”). 

{¶ 36} Amicus curiae argues that because sale prices do not need to be 

adjusted for the effect of long-term leases, Rinck did not need to adjust the sale 

prices for the encumbered properties he used as comparable properties in this 

case. That is, however, mistaken. Precisely because the encumbrances affect sale 

price, and precisely because the difference in sales price is a difference in value 

for tax purposes, Rinck was required to adjust the sale prices for his comparable 

properties to reflect the fact that the subject property was not encumbered and 

would therefore likely sell for less. 

Meijer is inapposite because Steak ‘n Shake has not been shown to come within 

the special-purpose doctrine 

{¶ 37} The next step in the defense of the Rinck appraisal relies on Meijer, 

122 Ohio St.3d 447, 2009-Ohio-3479, 912 N.E.2d 560. Because the use of 

unadjusted sales of leased properties could be appropriate in the context of the 

Meijer case, the county argues that Rinck’s reliance on unadjusted sales of 

encumbered properties is proper here. That also is mistaken, for two reasons. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

{¶ 38} First, in Meijer the appraisal adopted by the BTA did not place 

exclusive reliance on unadjusted encumbered sales, as Rinck did in his appraisal 

in this case. To the contrary, in Meijer, the appraisal adopted by the BTA 

reflected the appraiser’s conviction that the “market rent applicable to the 

property at issue ‘is considered to lie somewhere between the ranges indicated by 

the first and second generation comparables, with a strong bias towards those 

rents indicated by the first generation lease comparables.’ ” Meijer, ¶ 11, quoting 

the appraiser’s testimony. 

{¶ 39} Second and more significantly, the use of unadjusted sales prices 

for encumbered comparable properties was more appropriate in Meijer because 

that case involved the proper application of the “special-purpose doctrine.” 

Namely, in Meijer—unlike in the present case—the BTA evaluated and rejected 

the owner’s appraisal, which looked straightforwardly at what Meijer could 

realistically sell the brand-new facility for, given that it was an outsize building 

adapted for Meijer’s type of comprehensive retail business. See Meijer, ¶ 7 

(“[The property owner’s appraiser] looked at the big-box store as adding only 

modest market value because the structure would not be easily adaptable to the 

needs of a potential buyer, a factor that he opined would impair the property’s 

marketability” [emphasis added]). In other words, the property owner wanted to 

appraise the property as though it were a shuttered Kmart—yet Meijer had just 

recently built the 193,000 square-foot store and was operating it with apparent 

success. Under these circumstances, we held that the BTA acted reasonably and 

lawfully by preferring the competing appraisal, which considered the value of the 

property in its use by Meijer itself: 

 

[W]e acknowledged [in Dinner Bell Meats] that the present use of 

a property may be considered when “ ‘a building in good condition 

[is] being used currently and for the foreseeable future for the 
January Term, 2015 

13 

unique purpose for which it was built’ ”; otherwise, “the owner of 

a distinctive, but yet highly useful, building [would be able] to 

escape full property tax liability.” 

(Brackets sic.) Meijer, ¶ 25, quoting Dinner Bell Meats, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. 

Bd. of Revision, 12 Ohio St.3d 270, 272, 466 N.E.2d 909 (1984), quoting Fed. 

Res. Bank of Minneapolis v. State, 313 N.W.2d 619, 623 (Minn.1981). 

{¶ 40} In stark contrast with Meijer, there is no indication in the present 

case, let alone any finding, that the restaurant in question satisfies the threshold 

criterion for “special-purpose” treatment. Namely, no evidence in this case 

suggests that the construction of the restaurant involved an “improvement of the 

property” that “enhanced its utility to the business that occupied the property 

while not greatly increasing its marketability.” Meijer, ¶ 27. To the contrary, 

buildings of such size and configuration were apparently readily saleable in the 

broader market for commercial properties. 

{¶ 41} That means that the general rule of market-exchange valuation 

applies. See State ex rel. Park Invest. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 175 Ohio St. 

410, 412, 195 N.E.2d 908 (1964) (in the last analysis, “the value or true value in 

money of any property is the amount for which that property would sell on the 

open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer,” and the goal of an appraisal is 

“to determine the amount which such property should bring if sold on the open 

market”). 

CONCLUSION

{¶ 42} For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the BTA, and 

we remand for further proceedings. On remand, the BTA should determine the 

property value considering the Wilkins appraisal and any other evidence in the 

record. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14 

Decision reversed 

and cause remanded. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

 Karen H. Bauernschmidt Co., L.P.A., Karen H. Bauernschmidt, and 

Stephen M. Nowak, for appellant. 

 David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christopher 

A. Watkins, Kathryn M. Horvath, and Michael Greer, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorneys, for appellees Warren County Board of Revision and Warren County 

Auditor. 

 David C. DiMuzio, Inc., and David C. DiMuzio, for appellee Mason City 

School District Board of Education. 

 Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., and Kelley A. Gorry, urging affirmance 

for amicus curiae, County Auditors’ Association of Ohio. 

_________________