# Orange City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

> Ohio Supreme Court · February 7, 1996 · 74 Ohio St. 3d 415

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11153412

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 7, 1996
- **Citations:** 74 Ohio St. 3d 415; 1996 Ohio 282
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11153412

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, because "Evid.R. 101(A) does not mention administrative agencies as forums to which the Rules of Evidence apply," proceedings before the Board of Tax Appeals "need not comply with Evid.R. 703" regarding expert testimony

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 415.]

BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ORANGE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE, v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, APPELLEE; SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
COMPANY, APPELLANT.
[Cite as Orange City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision,
1996-Ohio-282.]
Taxation—Real property valuation—Board of Tax Appeals has discretion in
admitting evidence, weighing it, and granting credibility to testimony—
Board of Tax Appeals’ decision affirmed by Supreme Court when it is
reasonable and lawful.
(No. 95-23—Submitted October 12, 1995—Decided February 7, 1996.)
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 93-K-105 and 93-K-106.
__________________
{¶ 1} 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.
{¶ 2} 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”).
{¶ 3} 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
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

“provided significant professional assistance” to Van Curen. Sherwin-Williams
questioned Van Curen vigorously on this point.
{¶ 4} 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.
{¶ 5} 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.
{¶ 6} 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.
{¶ 7} 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,

2
January Term, 1996

the BTA found the true value of the property to be, as of January 1, 1991,
$4,750,000.
{¶ 8} This cause is before this court upon Sherwin-Williams’s appeal as of
right.
__________________
Kadish & Bender, Kevin M. Hinkel and David G. Lambert, for appellee
Board of Education for the Orange City School District.
Arter & Hadden and Karen Bauernschmidt; and Gerald Steltenkamp, 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.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 9} 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 decision.
{¶ 10} The BTA has discretion in admitting evidence, Ohio Turnpike
Comm. v. Ellis (1955), 164 Ohio St. 377, 58 O.O. 179, 131 N.E. 2d 397, paragraph
eight of the syllabus; Akron v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1966), 5 Ohio St. 2d 237, 242, 34
O.O. 2d 467, 470, 215 N.E. 2d 366, 371, weighing it, and granting credibility to
testimony. Witt Co. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 155,
573 N.E.2d 661. Unless the BTA abuses this discretion, we will affirm its decision.
Webb Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision (1995), 72 Ohio St. 3d 36, 647 N.E. 2d
162.

3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 11} Evid.R. 101(A) does not mention administrative agencies as forums
to which the Rules of Evidence apply. Indeed, the constitutional authority under
which the rules were promulgated extends only to “rules governing practice and
procedure in all courts of the state.” Section 5(B), Article 4, Ohio Constitution.
The rules, nevertheless, may guide the BTA in conducting its hearings. See
Castellano v. Kosydar (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 107, 71 O.O.2d 77, 326 N.E.2d 686.
Thus, the BTA need not comply with Evid.R. 703.
{¶ 12} Here, Van Curen set forth his assistant’s help and testified about it.
Appraisers occasionally require help from office staff. American Institute of Real
Estate Appraisers, The Appraisal of Real Estate (9 Ed. 1987) 67. Sherwin-Williams
had knowledge of this assistance in enough advance time of the hearing that it could
have subpoenaed the assistant and examined him. Furthermore, certifying that
Walters assisted Van Curen in his report satisfies the standards of the Appraisal
Foundation, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (1990),
Standards Rule 2-3. We find no abuse of discretion in the BTA’s accepting this
evidence and crediting it as it did.
{¶ 13} We also find that the BTA did not abuse its discretion in weighing
the evidence of the July 1993 sale. The sale was outside the time limits both
appraisers normally analyzed. Ballou did not adjust the sale for time; in fact, he
failed to record what specific adjustments he did make for this sale.
{¶ 14} Accordingly, we affirm the BTA’s decision because it is reasonable
and lawful.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
PFEIFER, J., dissents.
__________________

4

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11153412. Public record. Not legal advice.