Independence Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Edn v. Cuyahoga County Bd. Of Revision, No. 94585
| Decision Date | 02 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 94585 |
| Citation | 2010 Ohio 5845 |
| Parties | INDEPENDENCE SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF EDN. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BD. OF REVISION, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Robert A. Brindza
Jennifer A. Hoehnen
Daniel M. McIntyre
David A. Rose
Brindza, McIntyre & Seed, LLP
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
FOR CUYAHOGA BOARD OF REVISION, ET AL.
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Saundra J. Curtis-Patrick
Assistant County Prosecutor
Richard A. Levin
Ohio Tax Commissioner
FOR ROCKSIDE CORNERS, LTD.
Joseph A. Balog
General Counsel
{¶ 1} Appellant Independence School District Board of Education ("school board"), appeals the decision by the Board of Tax appeals ("BTA"), that rejected the school board's proposed value for Rockside Corners, Ltd. ("Rockside"), a shopping center located in the Independence school district. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the BTA.
{¶ 2} The property at issue is a shopping center located at 6901 Rockside Road in Independence, Ohio, at the corner of Rockside Road and Brecksville Road. The shopping center was constructed in 1989 and is 56, 000 square feet, with approximately 19 tenants, mainly consisting of food vendors. The strip also includes a Wendy's restaurant that is 3, 864 square feet that was built in 1996. Basically, the mall provides lunch options for the surrounding businesses.
{¶ 3} On March 31, 2006, Rockside filed a tax complaint with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision ("BOR") for the 2005 tax year, seeking to reduce the taxable value of its property. The Cuyahoga County Auditor appraised the property's fair market value at $6,986, 700, which corresponds to a taxable value of $2,445, 340.1 Rockside sought to reduce the fair market value to $6,078, 400. The school board filed a counter complaint with the BOR to maintain the Auditor's value for the 2005 tax year. The BOR refused to decrease the value of the property and maintained the Auditor's value for the 2005 tax year.
{¶ 4} The school board appealed the BOR's decision to the BTA, requesting an increase in the fair market value of the property to $7,000, 000, with a taxable value of $2,450, 000. However, at the hearing, the board sought a significantly higher value of $9,700, 000 based on the appraisal report prepared by Paul M. Provencher.
{¶ 5} At the BTA hearing, the school board presented the testimony of Provencher. In determining the property's taxable value, Provencher calculated the value for the property under three different methods: (1) the income-capitalization approach, which focuses on a property's capacity to generate income for the owner, (2) the sales-comparison approach, which focuses on the prices of comparable properties that have changed hands recently, and (3) the cost approach, which focuses on the cost of replacing the improvements on the property. Provencher gave the most weight to the income-capitalization approach and concluded the true value of the property was $9,700, 000.
{¶ 6} In response to Provencher's testimony, Rockside presented the testimony of two witnesses, Debbie L. Moss, the associate general counsel for the shopping center, and Alec J. Pacella, who acquired a 4.2% partialownership interest in the property in November 2006. The BTA discounted this testimony because it was based upon 2006 figures that were not supported by documentation.
{¶ 7} After considering the testimony and evidence submitted, the BTA concluded that it could not find sufficient probative evidence to determine a value different from that found by the BOR and affirmed the BOR's decision. The school board appeals and assigns the following four errors for our review:
{¶ 8} Initially, we note our limited standard of review of decisions by the BTA. R.C. 5717.04, which sets forth this court's standard of review for appeals from the BTA, provides:
"If upon hearing and consideration of such record and evidence the court decides that the decision of the board appealed from is reasonable and lawful it shall affirm the same, but if the court decides that such decision of the board is unreasonable or unlawful, the court shall reverse and vacate the decision or modify it and enter final judgment in accordance with such modification."
{¶ 9} Thus, the appellate court does not sit either as a super BTA or as a trier of fact de novo. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 398, 400, 422 N.E.2d 846. We must affirm a decision of the BTA unless that decision was unreasonable or unlawful. Galvin v. Masonic Toledo Trust (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 157, 296 N.E.2d 542; Cincinnati Nature Ctr. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 122, 357 N.E.2d 381. "As long as there is evidence which reasonably supports the conclusion reached by the board, the decision must stand." Highlights for Children, Inc. v. Collins (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 186, 187-188, 364 N.E.2d 13. See, also, PPG Industries, Inc. v. Kosydar (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 80, 417 N.E.2d 1385; American Steamship Co. v. Limbach (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 22, 572 N.E.2d 629.
{¶ 10} Because the school board does not argue its assigned errors separately, we will address them together. The school board contends the BTA's decision was unreasonable and unlawful because it rejected Provencher's appraisal value of the property based on erroneous conclusions.
{¶ 11} In reviewing the arguments, we are mindful that the BTA is not required to adopt the valuation fixed by any expert or witness. Cardinal Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 336 N.E.2d 433, paragraph two of syllabus; Hibschman v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1943), 142 Ohio St. 47, 48, 49 N.E.2d 949; Benedict v. Bd. of Revision (1959), 170 Ohio St. 62, 63, 162 N.E.2d 479; Shaker Square Co. v. Bd. of Revision (1960), 170 Ohio St. 369, 371, 165 N.E.2d 431. The BTA is vested with wide discretion in determining the weight to be given to evidence and the credibility of witnesses and courts will not disturb such determination unless a patent abuse of discretion is shown. Cardinal, at 20. Moreover, the fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing authorities. Id., at paragraph four of the syllabus.
{¶ 12} The school board argues the trial court erred by rejecting thevalue Provencher established by using the income-capitalization approach. In rejecting the value, the BTA held:
BTA Opinion, Dec. 29, 2009, at 11.
{¶ 13} The school board argues that contrary to the BTA's decision, Provencher did offer substantive data regarding the market and did not summarily project the expense data as the information was provided in the section of the report containing the summary of the comparable properties that were sold. Where a party relies upon an appraiser's opinion of value, the BTA may accept all, part, or none of the appraiser's opinions. Witt Co. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 155, 573 N.E.2d 661.
While the school board contends sufficient information was presented, the BTA did not believe the figures presented were adequately detailed. The comparison property figures were in summary form. That is, how the expenses or net operating income were determined was not known. Additionally, the BTA questioned Provencher's conclusion that the 1989 strip mall property would garner the same price per square foot as the newer Wendy's building that was constructed in 1996. Given the BTA's concern with the figures relied upon Provencher, it was not obligated to accept the income approach value established by Provencher.
{¶ 14} The school board also argues that the income value of $9,700, 000 is consistent with the Auditor's 2006 value of $9,774, 200. However, the record does not show the information or data on which the Auditor based the 2006 value. "[T]he evidence adduced for one tax year may not be considered with respect to another year if it is not made a part of the record in the case pertaining to that other year." Colonial Village v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio...
To continue reading
Request your trial