Court Opinion

ID: 9779596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:25:18.397101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:36.481991
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 36} The majority opinion states, “A foreclosure sale usually does not qualify as an arm’s-length transaction because the sale occurs under the compulsion that the property be liquidated for the benefit of creditors. Moreover, the finding of the Board of Tax Appeals (‘BTA’) in this case that the foreclosure sale was voluntary is not supported by reliable and probative evidence * *
{¶ 37} I disagree with this conclusion for two simple reasons. First, the foreclosing party is the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, a giant federal entity that cannot be compelled to do anything. If it sold a property at auction, it did so because it wanted to, not because it was forced to. Second, the BTA’s decision was supported by the unrebutted testimo*72ny of the purchaser, who stated that the auction was nationally advertised and involved at least two other bidders.
David C. DiMuzio, Inc., David C. DiMuzio, and Jennifer B. Antaki, for appellant.
Cooper & Elliott, L.L.C., Rex H. Elliott, Charles H. Cooper, and John C. Camillus, for appellees Fenco Development Company and Craig Fennel.
{¶ 38} Furthermore, the BTA stated that the board of education in this case “presented no evidence or witnesses in support of its position that the BOR [Board of Revision] had improperly reduced the [property’s] valuation.” This lack of support for the BOR’s position is evidenced by the county’s own appraiser, who stated, “[T]he condition of the property is deplorable * * *. I do believe that our current value is too high.”
{¶ 39} The BOR reviewed all the facts before it and concluded that the sale price was a true indication of value, even though the property had been sold at auction. Based on the record before it, the BTA upheld the valuation, concluding that the auction had been an arm’s-length transaction. I agree that, under the circumstances of this case, the auction was an arm’s-length transaction. I would affirm the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.
O’Connor, and Lanzinger, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.