Docstoc

Pickaway County Ohio Home Values - Download as PDF

Document Sample
Pickaway County Ohio Home Values - Download as PDF Powered By Docstoc
					                              OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

Michael L. Metzler,                   )
                                      )                  CASE NO. 2004-R-481
               Appellant,             )
                                      )                (REAL PROPERTY TAX)
     vs.                              )
                                      )                DECISION AND ORDER
Pickaway County Board of Revision and )
Pickaway County Auditor,              )
                                      )
               Appellees.             )


APPEARANCES:

                       For the Appellant    - Michael L. Metzler, pro se
                                              130 Sylvan Court
                                              Circleville, OH 43113

                       For the County       - P. Eugene Long, II
                       Appellees              Pickaway County Prosecuting Attorney
                                              Alan F. Sedlak
                                              Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
                                              P.O. Box 910
                                              Circleville, OH 43113


                 Entered October 21, 2005

Ms. Margulies, Mr. Eberhart, and Mr. Dunlap concur.


             The Board of Tax Appeals considers this matter pursuant to a notice of appeal

filed by Michael L. Metzler. Mr. Metzler appeals from a decision of the Pickaway County

Board of Revision (“BOR”), in which the BOR determined the taxable value of the subject

property for tax year 2003.

             The Pickaway County Auditor and the BOR determined that the true and taxable

values for the subject property for 2003 should be as follows:
PARCEL NUMBER                     TAXABLE VALUES                    TRUE VALUES

A05-1-035-01-008-00
      Land                        $ 15,910                          $ 45,460
      Building                    $140,070                          $400,190
      Total                       $155,980                          $445,650


             Mr. Metzler, however, contends in his notice of appeal that the true value of the

subject property should be $350,000, and the taxable value should be $122,500.

                                                 s
             The subject property is Mr. Metzler’ personal residence of approximately 5,000

square feet. The property is located at 130 Sylvan Court, Circleville, Pickaway County, Ohio.

             The county auditor originally assessed the subject property at a market value of

$445,650 as of the tax lien date, January 1, 2003. Mr. Metzler filed a complaint with the BOR,

requesting that the true value of the subject property for 2003 be decreased based on a

financing appraisal with a valuation date as of May 21, 2003, the fact that the home was not

completed on tax lien date, and the fact that the actual cost to build the subject property was

                     s
less than the county’ value since Mr. Metzler acted as his own contractor. The BOR did not

change the value as determined by the county auditor. It is from that final determination that

Mr. Metzler now appeals.

             The matter is submitted to the Board of Tax Appeals upon the notice of appeal,

the statutory transcript (“S.T.”) certified to this board by the BOR and the record of the

evidentiary hearing (“H.R.”) before this board. At the hearing, the appellant did not appear.

The county appellees appeared and were represented by counsel, but presented no additional

testimony or evidence.




                                              2
              Although Mr. Metzler failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing before this

board, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that in order to perform our statutory duty, this

board must make a de novo finding of value. In this regard, we acknowledge the Supreme

      s
Court’ decision in Black v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1985), 16 Ohio St.3d 11, wherein

the court held:

              “The requirements of R.C. 5717.05, as interpreted by Cleveland
              [v. Bd. of Revision (1953), 96 Ohio App. 486], establish that the
              common pleas court has a duty on appeal to independently weigh
              and evaluate the evidence properly before it. The court is then
              required to make an independent determination concerning the
                                                              s
              valuation of the property at issue. The court’ review of the
              evidence should be thorough and comprehensive, and should
              ensure that its final determination is more than a mere rubber
                                                s
              stamping of the board of revision’ determination ***.” Id. at 13-
              14.


              The Supreme Court again addressed the review standard this board must follow

in Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 13, 15, wherein

the court stated:

              “We find that the BTA in this case is required to meet the standard
              enunciated in Black. Thus, if the only evidence before the BTA is
              the statutory transcript from the board of revision, the BTA must
              make its own independent judgment based on its weighing of the
              evidence contained in that transcript.”


              In Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d

336, and Springfield Local Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d

493, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that in an appeal filed pursuant to R.C. 5717.01, there

exists no presumption that the values found by a county board of revision are correct.

Nevertheless, an appellant has the burden of presenting evidence in support of the value that it
                                               3
has asserted. However, as noted by the court in Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v.

Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 564:

              “When cases are appealed from a board of revision to the BTA,
              the burden of proof is on the appellant, whether it be a taxpayer or
              a board of education, to prove its right to an increase or decrease
              from the value determined by the board of revision. Cincinnati
              School Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78
              Ohio St.3d 325, 328, ***. The appellant before the BTA must
              present competent and probative evidence to make its case; it is
              not entitled to a reduction or an increase in valuation merely
              because no evidence is presented against its claim. Hibschman v.
              Bd. of Tax Appeals (1943), 142 Ohio St. 47, ***.” Id. at 566.
              (Parallel citations omitted.)


Once competent and probative evidence of value has been presented, then the other parties to

the appeal have the burden of providing evidence that rebuts that of the appellant. Springfield

Local Bd. of Edn., supra; Mentor Exempted Village Bd. of Edn. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision

(1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 318.

              At the BOR, Mr. Metzler presented a financing appraisal establishing a value for

the subject property as of May 21, 2003, five months after the tax lien date. An appraisal as of

a date other than the tax lien date is not necessarily a competent, probative indicator of the

value of a property. The Supreme Court of Ohio confirmed the importance of valuing property

as of the tax lien date in Freshwater v. Belmont Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 26.

Specifically, the court held:

              “The essence of an assessment is that it fixes the value based upon
              acts as they exist at a certain point in time. ***. The real estate
              market may rise, fall, or stay constant between any two dates, and
              the assumption that a change in valuation between two given dates
              is constant and uniform, without proof, may properly be rejected by
              the finder of fact.” Id. at 30.

                                               4
See, also, Olmsted Falls Village Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d

552, 555 (“the BTA must base its decision on an opinion of true value that expresses a value

for the property as of the tax lien date of the year in question”); Park Place Properties, LLC v.

Miami Cty. Bd. of Revision (Feb. 15, 2002), Miami App. No. 2001-CA-35, unreported

(affirming a decision of the BTA rejecting an appraisal report that purported to find value two

months after the tax lien date); Cleveland Mun. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd.

of Revision (Jan. 23, 2004), BTA No. 2002-R-2211, unreported (rejecting a financing appraisal

that found value eight months after tax lien date); Oberlin Manor Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of

Revision (Jan. 9, 2004), BTA Nos. 2002-J-1828, et seq., unreported (rejecting an appraisal that

found value four months after tax lien date); Bd. of Edn. of the Westerville City School Dist. v.

Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Feb. 7, 2003), BTA No. 2002-M-1740, unreported (rejecting a

financing appraisal that found value six months before tax lien date); Moore v. Hamilton Cty.

Bd. of Revision (July 23, 1999), BTA No. 1997-R-1541, unreported (determining that a

financing appraisal that found value nine months after tax lien date provides little competent,

probative evidence as to the value of the subject property); Laughlin v. Erie Cty. Bd. of

Revision (Aug. 23, 1996), BTA No. 1995-S-1005, unreported (rejecting two appraisals

generated for financing purposes, neither of which finds value as of the tax lien date); Austen v.

Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision (Nov. 5, 1993), BTA No. 1992-R-852, unreported (rejecting a

financing appraisal that found value six months after tax lien date). Therefore, based on the

date of valuation, the appraisal provides little reliable, probative evidence of value as of the tax

lien date.


                                                 5
              In addition to failing to find value as of the tax lien date, the appraisal was

generated for financing purposes, and not for ad valorum tax purposes.              Appraisals for

financing purposes are not necessarily a complete and thorough evaluation of the property.

Moore, Laughlin, and Austen, supra, and Pahanish v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Revision (Feb.

18, 1994), BTA No. 1993-B-1103, unreported. Although the appraisal report appears to be

more substantial than the two- or three-page short-form appraisal usually submitted for

financing purposes, the purpose, the focus, and the considerations can be very different.

Without explanatory testimony and cross-examination, we again find that the appraisal

provides little reliable, probative evidence of value for the subject property as of the tax lien

date.

                                   s
              Finally, Mr. Metzler’ efforts in acting as his own contractor are valuable and

that cost should have been taken into consideration in determining cost or value.

              A review of the statutory transcript indicates that the BOR made its

determination of value based upon consideration of the evidence before it. In addition, the

appellant has not submitted any evidence to this board showing that the BOR decision is in

error.

                                             s
              This board may approve the BOR’ valuation, without the BOR presenting any

evidence. Corporate Exchange Bldgs. IV & V, L.P. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 82

Ohio St.3d 297; Luken v. Miami Cty. Bd. of Revision (Sept. 19, 1997), BTA No. 1996-G-976,

unreported. Based upon the record before us, this board is unable to determine that the final

determination of the Pickaway County Board of Revision is in error, the appellant having

failed to sustain the burden of persuasion.

                                               6
                   Therefore, the Board of Tax Appeals finds that the value of the subject property

as of January 1, 2003 is as follows:

PARCEL NUMBER                          TAXABLE VALUES                    TRUE VALUES

A05-1-035-01-008-00
      Land                             $ 15,910                          $ 45,460
      Building                         $140,070                          $400,190
      Total                            $155,980                          $445,650


                   Further, it is the order of this board that the Pickaway County Auditor cause the

records to reflect the value determined for the subject real property and to assess the same in

accordance therewith as provided by law.

ohiosearchkeybta




                                                   7

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Pickaway County Ohio Home Values document sample