[Cite as Papadimoulis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Aud., 2012-Ohio-925.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

No. 97023

ALEX PAPADIMOULIS 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT 

vs. 

CUYAHOGA COUNTY AUDITOR, ET AL.

 DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

JUDGMENT:

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

Administrative Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CV-750765 

BEFORE: Stewart, P.J., Jones, J., and Rocco, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 8, 2012 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Dean W. Van Dress 

Van Dress Legal Group Co., LLC 

The Bank of Berea Building 

46 Front Street 

Berea, OH 44017 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Saundra J. Curtis-Patrick 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.: 

{¶1} This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 

11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the 

appellant’s brief, and oral argument by appellant’s counsel. Alex Papadimoulis appeals 

from a Common Pleas Court affirmance of a Board of Revision decision that refused to 

overturn a real property valuation by the county auditor. Papadimoulis argues that he 

submitted proof of the property’s value with evidence that he recently bought it in an 

arm’s length transaction. 

{¶2} We conclude that the court erred by affirming the Board of Revision’s 

decision because there was no evidence of any kind to support that decision. At no point 

in the appeals process of this case, before both the common pleas court and this court, has 

the auditor appeared to defend the valuation. On this basis alone we can reverse the 

court’s judgment because App.R. 16(C) permits us to accept Papadimoulis’s statement of 

the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if his brief “reasonably appears to 

sustain such action.” Papadimoulis’s brief cites to evidence that he submitted to the 

Court of Common Pleas showing that he purchased the property in an arm’s length 

transaction. R.C. 5717.03 states that under such circumstances, the auditor “shall 

consider the sale price of such tract, lot, or parcel to be the true value for taxation 

purposes.” 

{¶3} The county auditor did not appear before the Court of Common Pleas, so 

there was no evidence of any kind to support the board’s decision. The court recognized 
this, but cited W. Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 170 Ohio St. 340, 342, 

164 N.E.2d 741 (1960), for the proposition that the auditor and the board are not 

“required to present any evidence.” 

{¶4} In Colonial Village Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d 

268, 2009-Ohio-4975, 915 N.E.2d 1196, the Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged that the 

“rules” that apply in valuation cases are: (1) the party challenging the board of revision’s 

decision at the board of tax appeals has the burden of proof to establish its proposed value 

as the value of the property, and (2) the board of revision (or auditor) bears no burden to 

offer proof of the accuracy of the appraisal on which the county initially relies, with the 

result that the board of tax appeals is justified in retaining the county’s valuation of the 

property when an appellant fails to sustain its burden of proof at the board of tax appeals. 

Id. at ¶ 23. Those rules were, however, subject to a narrow exception when “the 

developed record before the [board of tax appeals] affirmatively negated the validity of 

the county’s valuation of the property.” Id. at ¶ 24, citing Dayton–Montgomery Cty. Port 

Auth. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 113 Ohio St.3d 281, 2007-Ohio-1948, 865 

N.E.2d 22, ¶ 15. 

{¶5} Papadimoulis offered significant evidence to show that he purchased the 

property in a voluntary arm’s length transaction in a recent sale. This evidence 

contradicted the board’s determination. With the absence of any evidence offered in 

rebuttal by the auditor, the court had no basis for affirming the board. 
{¶6} The first assignment of error is sustained. The second assignment of error, 

relating to the board’s failure to give notice of the valuation hearing, is moot. App.R. 

12(A)(1)(c). This cause is remanded to the court with instructions to enter judgment 

valuing the subject property in the amount of $52,781.74 as prayed for in the notice of 

appeal from the decision of the Board of Revision. 

{¶7} This cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

It is ordered that appellant recover of appellees his costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Cuyahoga County Court of 

Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

 

MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., and 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR