Cincinnati v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice

Thomas J. Moyer.

Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.

NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the

full texts of the opinions after they have been released

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

City of Cincinnati, Appellee, v. Hamilton County Board of

Revision et al.; Grandin House, Ltd., Appellant; Cincinnati

School District Board of Education, Appellee.

[Cite as Cincinnati v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision

(1994), Ohio St.3d .]

Taxation -- Real property valuation -- Taxpayer has burden of

proving its right to a reduction in value -- Board of Tax

Appeals' decision not overruled by court when decision

based upon reliable, substantial evidence, and is

reasonable and lawful.

(No. 92-2494 -- Submitted July 15, 1993 -- Decided May 18,

1994.)

Appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 90-X-1356.

This appeal originated with the filing of complaints

before the Hamilton County Board of Revision by the city of

Cincinnati, the Cincinnati City School District and the

property owner, concerning the determination by the Hamilton

County Auditor that the true value of the subject real property

for 1989 was $3,514,290.

Appellant, Grandin House, Ltd. ("Grandin House"), owns the

property, a nine-story building containing approximately

seventy-eight one-bedroom, fifty-two two-bedroom and eight

three-bedroom apartments renting for $515 to $1,015, and office

and commercial space on the first floor, and a one-story

commercial building.

Before the board of revision, the city presented the

testimony of appraiser E. Pike Levine, and other evidence, to

support an estimated true value of $5,600,000. Grandin House

presented no evidence. The board of revision determined the

true value to be $4,518,000, and the city appealed to the Board

of Tax Appeals ("BTA"). The parties waived the presentation of

additional evidence and stipulated that the transcript before

the board of revision would constitute the record on appeal.

The BTA, upon review, determined the true value of the

subject property to be $5,600,000 and Grandin House appealed.

The cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.

Wayne E. Petkovic, for appellant.

Kohnen, Patton & Hunt and David C. DiMuzio, for appellee

Cincinnati School District Board of Education.

Fay D. Dupuis, City Solicitor, and Dorothy Carman,

Assisstant City Solicitor, for appellee the city of Cincinnati.

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney,

and Thomas J. Sheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for

appellee Hamilton County Auditor.

Per Curiam. The decision of the BTA is affirmed.

In its brief Grandin House argues only that the BTA's

decision does not set forth the basis for its determination, in

conflict with Babcock & Wilcox v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision

(1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 290, 603 N.E.2d 981. We disagree.

The BTA did analyze the evidence and did set forth the

reasons for its decision. The BTA reviewed Levine's evidence

and the testimony of the county auditor's appraisers. The BTA

found no explanation of how the board of revision had arrived

at its valuation and no evidence to support it, but the BTA did

focus on the question of "whether any other party established,

by sufficient probative and competent evidence, that the value

of the property is other than [that] established by the [board

of revision]."

The BTA's analysis continued with the correct observation

that in the absence of a recent arm's-length sale, the true

value in money of the subject property can be calculated by

applying any of the three standard methods of appraisal.

Levine compared fifteen recent sales he considered analalogous

to the subject property to develope a grid based on price per

square foot, price per unit and gross rent multiplier. He then

evaluated the comparables to determine "where on the grid the

subject property would fall," and from "these three indicators

of value * * * selected a middle figure at $5.5 million [and]

added $100,000 for a commercial building which is located on

the property."

Moreover, The BTA criticized the county auditor's

appraisers because they were "unaware that there were

commercial enterprises on the first floor," did not obtain

rental information about the separate commercial building, and

used an income approach to value that considered only the

apartments on the second through ninth floors.

The BTA concluded that where an appellant has produced

evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the property's value is

different from that determined by the board of revision, "it is

incumbent upon the board of revision to rebut" that evidence.

The BTA found Levine's evidence "to be the most credible and

persuasive," because he "anchored his appraisal with actual

marketplace transactions."

Grandin House failed to sustain its burden of proving its

right to a reduction in value by competent evidence. Zindle

v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 203,

542 N.E.2d 650, 651, and Crow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

(1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 55, 552 N.E.2d 892.

The decision of the BTA is neither unreasonable nor

unlawful and it is affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.

Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.