Gides v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Revision, No. 100830

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
• Writing for the Court: FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.
• Citation: 2014 Ohio 4086
• Parties: MARY T. GIDES PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
• Docket Number: No. 100830
• Decision Date: 18 September 2014

2014 Ohio 4086

MARY T. GIDES PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD
OF REVISION, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

No. 100830

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

September 18, 2014

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Administrative Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals
Case Nos. 2013-865 and 2013-879

BEFORE: Celebrezze, P.J., Rocco, J., and Kilbane, J.

Page 2

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

David M. Lynch
David M. Lynch, Attorney at Law
333 Babbitt Road
Suite 333
Euclid, Ohio 44123

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

For Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Reno J. Oradini
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

For Euclid City School District Board of Education

Paul J. Deegan
Karrie M. Kalail
Sarah E. Kutscher
Britton, Smith, Peters & Kalail Co., L.P.A.
3 Summit Park Drive
Suite 400
Cleveland, Ohio 44131

Page 3

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.:

{¶1} Appellant, Mary T. Gides, appeals the decision of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA"), which affirmed the decision of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision ("BOR") denying a change in value for an apartment building she owned. Gides claims that the BTA erred by not according her evidence of value due weight or rejecting the evidence. After a thorough review of the record and law, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} Gides owned a multi-unit apartment building located at 19970 Euclid Avenue, Euclid, Ohio, for a number of years. She believed the assessed value of the building for real estate tax purposes was higher than the actual value given the condition of the property and the rents she received. On March 30, 2012, she filed a complaint against the valuation for the 2011 tax year with the BOR. The property was valued at $225,800 by Cuyahoga County, and Gides sought a reduction in value to $80,000. The Board of Education of the Euclid City School District ("Board of Education") filed a counter-complaint seeking to maintain the currently assessed value.

{¶3} The BOR conducted a hearing on March 19, 2013, which was attended by Gides, her attorney, an attorney for the Board of Education, and a witness for Gides. Gides submitted photographs that showed the deteriorating condition of the apartment building. She also offered tax returns from 2007 through 2010 documenting income derived from the building as well as a spreadsheet of rents for an unspecified period of

Page 4

time. The BOR's decision indicates that no evidence was introduced to establish that the rents she received were comparable to rents received for similar properties, termed market rental rates. The BOR also determined that Gides failed to state a capitalization rate in determining the value of the building using an income-based appraisal. The BOR determined that Gides had not met her burden of demonstrating that the assessed value was inaccurate. It therefore affirmed the value of $225,800 in a decision issued April 1, 2013. The BOR indicated, "[t]his decision was based on either; [sic] insufficient evidence, evidence didn't support a value change, testimony didn't support opinion of value, taxpayer and or witnesses could not be cross-examined."

{¶4} Gides appealed the decision to the BTA on April 19, 2013. She filed a brief in support on December 3, 2013. Appearance before the BTA was waived by the parties, and the BTA determined the issues on the briefs and the administrative record before it, along with a supplement to the record Gides filed with her brief. The BTA issued a four-page opinion on December 5, 2013, upholding the decision of the BOR. The BTA determined that the method of valuation used by Gides could not be relied on. Gides's use of an income valuation method to arrive at a fair market value for the property did not include evidence that the rents received were comparable to market rents. Further, the BTA determined that Gides did not apply a capitalization rate to the purported net operating income to derive a value for the property. Finally, the BTA addressed the photographs submitted by Gides, which documented the decrepit condition of the building. The BTA found that there was no supporting testimony documenting

Page 5

how the condition of the building affected its value. Without such testimony, it is mere speculation as to how any defect in the building affected its value. The BTA determined that "there exists an insufficient basis upon which to alter the fiscal officer's original assessment of the property and the [BOR's] confirmation thereof."

{¶5} Gides appealed the BTA's determination to this court, assigning one error for review:

I. The Board of Tax Appeals committed error in not accepting as evidence of value as reflected by the condition of the property along with the rents received.

II. Law and Analysis A. Jurisdiction

{¶6} Before addressing the merits of the instant appeal, appellees, the Board of Education, the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer, and the BOR, argue that this court lacks jurisdiction because Gides did not name the tax commissioner as a party to the appeal.

{¶7} R.C. 5717.04 gives a party the right to appeal the decision of the BTA to the Ohio Supreme Court or the appellate court in the appropriate jurisdiction. It states, "the proceeding to obtain a reversal, vacation, or modification of a decision of the board of tax appeals shall be by appeal to the supreme court or the court of appeals for the county in which the property taxed is situated or in which the taxpayer resides." The statute goes on to impose several requirements necessary to perfect an appeal. One such requirement states that "[i]n all such appeals the tax commissioner or all persons to whom the decision of the board appealed from is required by such section to be sent, other than the appellant,

Page 6

shall be made appellees." Former R.C. 5717.04. Appellees point out that the tax commissioner was not named as an appellee in the present action, and therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction.

{¶8} "[W]hen the right to appeal is conferred by statute, an appeal can be perfected only in the manner prescribed by the applicable...