Orange City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 95-23
| Decision Date | 07 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-23,95-23 |
| Citation | 74 Ohio St.3d 415,659 N.E.2d 1223 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ORANGE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, Appellee; Sherwin-Williams Company, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
The Sherwin-Williams Company, appellant, owns real property at 26300 Fargo Avenue in Bedford Heights. It filed a complaint with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision ("BOR"), appellee, which, as amended, sought to decrease the true value of this property for tax year 1991 from $4,550,000 to $3,540,000.
The Board of Education for the Orange City School District ("BOE"), appellee, filed a complaint in response to Sherwin-Williams's complaint. In this complaint, the BOE sought to preserve the value of the property as listed by the Cuyahoga County Auditor. The BOR, nevertheless, determined the true value to be $4,100,000. The BOE appealed this decision to the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA").
At the BTA, the BOE presented the expert appraisal testimony of Richard P. Van Curen. Van Curen testified that the true value of the property was $4,750,000. In Van Curen's report, he certified that his assistant, David E. Walter, "provided significant professional assistance" to Van Curen. Sherwin-Williams questioned Van Curen vigorously on this point.
Van Curen testified that Walter worked on market data and on descriptions of the property and neighborhood. In these tasks, Walter verified some of the market data information and measured distances from the property to the freeway access. Van Curen testified that he could not distinguish Walter's work product from his own.
Sherwin-Williams presented the expert appraisal testimony of Paul H. Ballou. Ballou testified that the true value of the property was $3,540,000. He offered as "an excellent comparable" sale the sale of the property at 25000 Miles Road in Bedford Heights. The sale occurred on July 19, 1993, two and a half years after the tax lien date. The property was approximately the size, and within a mile, of the subject property. Ballou adjusted the sale for its difference in size and location of the subject, but not as to time from the tax lien date.
Both appraisers testified that the sale was beyond the time that they would normally consider as closely comparable in time. Van Curen refused to include the sale in his analysis; Ballou, on the other hand, did, though in a supplement prepared after his initial report.
After describing the property and each appraiser's report, the BTA selected Van Curen's comparable property analysis as the best indication of value. It found the properties he chose for comparison to be more like the subject and to require less subjective adjustment. The BTA rejected Sherwin-Williams's criticism of Van Curen's reliance upon office staff to perform certain tasks for the appraisal. It accepted his testimony that he had reviewed the information provided and that the opinion of value offered was his own. The BTA, furthermore, approved of Van Curen's rejection of the July 1993 sale. The BTA found that a lack of information regarding the specific conditions of the sale rendered his decision reasonable. Thus, the BTA found the true value of the property to be, as of January 1, 1991, $4,750,000.
This cause is before this court upon Sherwin-Williams's appeal as of right.
Kadish & Bender, Kevin M. Hinkel, Cleveland, and David G. Lambert, Columbus, for appellee Board of Education for the Orange City School District.
Arter & Hadden and Karen Bauernschmidt, Cleveland, and Gerald Steltenkamp, Milford, for appellant.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Gregory B. Rowinski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Cuyahoga County Auditor and the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision.
Sherwin-Williams contends that the BTA incorrectly adopted an appraisal that relied on data collected and analyzed by an individual who did not testify and that the evidence did not comply with Evid.R. 703. It also contends that the BTA improperly ignored the July 1993 sale, which it claims is the most comparable sale in the taxing district. We disagree and affirm the BTA's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ronald Stringer
... ... Edwards (July 11, 1996), ... Cuyahoga App. No. 69077, unreported (citing State v ... ...
-
Hilliard City Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...in excluding Fried's statement that the sale was between related parties. See Orange City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision , 74 Ohio St.3d 415, 416, 659 N.E.2d 1223 (1996)("The BTA has discretion in admitting evidence"). The basis for Fried's statement rested solely......
-
Buckeye Terminals, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...evidence, and unless the BTA abuses its discretion, we will affirm its decision. Orange City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision , 74 Ohio St.3d 415, 416–417, 659 N.E.2d 1223 (1996).{¶ 12} We reject Buckeye Terminals argument that once the BTA hearing ended, the partie......
-
Brisker v. Ohio Dep't of Ins.
...Dist. Bd. Of Educ. , 144 Ohio App.3d 38, 48, 759 N.E.2d 444 (9th Dist.), quoting Orange City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision , 74 Ohio St.3d 415, 417, 659 N.E.2d 1223, 1224 (1996). The rules of evidence, including the hearsay rule, do not control administrative hea......