Summary
In Ridgeview Ctr., Inc. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 30, 31, 536 N.E.2d 1157, we held that a decision of the BTA was unreasonable because its decision was internally inconsistent.
Summary of this case from Higbee Co. v. Bd. of RevisionOpinion
No. 87-1987
Submitted January 17, 1989 —
Decided April 12, 1989.
Taxation — Real property tax — True value of real property — BTA's decision unreasonable, when — Value found in excess of evidence presented to BTA.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 85-F-689 and 86-B-890.
Ridgeview Center, Inc., appellant, is the owner of the Ridgeview Shopping Center in North Ridgeville, Ohio. The true values of the property for the tax years 1984 and 1985 are at issue in this case. The shopping center, consisting of two retail buildings, a service building, and a disco club, is situated on 27.46 acres of a thirty-eight acre parcel of land. A bank is located on another .76 acres of this parcel, and the remainder is undeveloped frontage. Two parcels lie to the west of the main parcel. They are undeveloped and total .57 acres.
For the tax year 1984, the Lorain County Auditor, appellee, valued the subject property at $2,700,900, and, for 1985, at $2,186,700. The Lorain County Board of Revision, appellee, agreed with these valuations. Ridgeview Center, Inc. appealed these decisions to the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA").
Each party presented to the BTA an appraisal witness to provide an opinion of value and a report. Both witnesses described the property as being in poor condition and in need of extensive maintenance. Appellant's witness testified that the property was worth $1,315,000 for the tax year 1984 and $1,300,000 for 1985. Appellees' witness testified that the property was worth $2,171,380 for both tax years.
The BTA made the following findings:
"Upon analysis it is apparent that the report of Mr. Van Curen [appellant's witness] more closely resembles the actual fair market value of the subject property. Although Mr. Robbins [appellees' witness] felt that the property was in poor condition he inflated the actual income figures without showing that the actual market would support the higher figures. In addition, the methodology utilized in deriving a value for the freestanding bank is not disclosed.
"This board should and has considered the administrative record (statutory transcript) which the county board of revision is required to file with this Board, giving the record whatever weight this board deems appropriate, even though additional evidence may be and in this case was accepted. Black v. Bd. of Revision (1985), 16 Ohio St.3d 11. * * *"
The BTA found the true value of the property for both tax years to be $2,450,000.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A., Wayne E. Petkovic, Fred Siegel and Karen Bauernschmidt, for appellant.
Gregory A. White, prosecuting attorney, and John G. Morrison, for appellees.
In R.R.Z. Assoc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 201, 527 N.E.2d 874, 877, this court summarized the functions of the BTA and this court in valuing real property for tax purposes:
"The BTA need not adopt any expert's valuation. It has wide discretion to determine the weight given to evidence and the credibility of witnesses before it. Its true value decision is a question of fact which will be disturbed by this court only when it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful. Cardinal Federal S. L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 73 O.O. 2d 83, 336 N.E.2d 443, paragraphs two, three and four of the syllabus. This court is not a `"super" Board of Tax Appeals.' Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 398, 400, 20 O.O. 3d 349, 351, 422 N.E.2d 846, 848. We will not overrule BTA findings of fact that are based upon sufficient probative evidence. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. Lindley (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 47, 19 O.O. 3d 234, 417 N.E.2d 1257, syllabus."
Since we find that it affirmatively appears from the record that the BTA's decision is unreasonable, we reverse and remand.
The BTA stated that "the report of * * * [appellant's] witness more closely resemble[d] the actual fair market value of the subject property" and then criticized appellees' witness as to the methods used in making his valuation. Yet, the BTA found that the property's true values were approximately $1,150,000 higher than the opinion of appellant's witness and approximately $279,000 higher than that of appellees' witness. We have also reviewed the administrative record and find nothing to support the BTA's decision. Nor did the BTA state what evidence in the record prompted its decision.
The statements in the BTA's decision reasonably suggest that the property's value would approximate the opinion presented by appellant's witness. However, the BTA's conclusion is at great variance with the body of its decision. We hold that the BTA acted unreasonably because its decision is internally inconsistent and because it decided that the true values of the subject property were in excess of the evidence presented to it. Mentor Exempted Village Bd. of Edn. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 318, 526 N.E.2d 64. Therefore, the decision of the BTA is reversed and the cause is remanded to it for a decision consistent with this opinion.
Decision reversed and cause remanded.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.