Appellant, BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CASE NO W-2607

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, C/O PATRICK T. BUSii, MEMBER SUPREME COURT CASE CASE NUMBER; v. Appellant, BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CASE NO W-2607 MEDINA COLIiNTY BOARD OF REVISION AND THE MEDINA COUNTY AUDITOR Appellants. APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS' M:EDINA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ANI) MEDINA. COUNTY AUDITOR'S MERIT BRIEF NATI-IAN E. CARNES ( ) (Counsel of Record) DEAN HOLMAN MEDINA COUNTY PROSF,CUTOR`S OFFICE 72 Public Square Medina, Ohio (330) (330) (fax) ncar{nes@meclinaco. org R1CII.MAN PROPERTIES, LLC, C/O PATRICK T. I3USFI, MEMBER (Pro Se Appellee) Industrial Parkway Cleveland, Ohio 44I35 (216) PRO SE APPELLEE A:I'I'ORNEY FOR APPELLANTS MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION AND MEDINA COUNTY AUDITOR JOSEPH W. TESTA Tax Commissioner of Oluo Department of Taxation 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH (614) TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO v ". ^fjh L. j^i ^%St^^

2 TABLE OFCONTENTS NOTICE OF APPEAL l DECISION AND ORDER R.C R.C

3 a IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, C/O PATRICK T. BUSH, MEMBER V. Appellant, SUPREME COURT CASE CASE NI.IMBER; h-6 ^30 BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CASE NO W-2607 MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION AND THE MEDINA COUNTY AUDITOR Appellants. NOTICE OF APPEAI, NATHAN E. CARNES ( ) (Counsel of Record) DEAN HOLMAN MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE 72 Public Square Medina, Ohio (330) (330) (fax) org RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, C/O PATRICK T. BUSH, MEMBER (Pro Se Appellant) Industrial Parkway Cleveland, Ohio (216) PRO SE APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION AND MEI3IiNA COUNTY AUDITOR JOSEPH W. TESTA Tax Commissioner of Ohio Department of Taxation 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH (614) TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO ( ZT, ^`''i^ ^^? Z C! 11 3 ^M1.J:

4 ^.. The Appellants, Medina County Board of Revision and the Medina County Auditor hereby give notice of its appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, from a Decision and Order of the Board of Tax Appeals dated February 7, 2013, a copy of which is attached as "Exhibit A" and which is incorporated by reference. Appellants complain of the following errors in the Decision and Order of the Board of Tax Appeals. 1. The Board of Tax Appeals erred when it unlawfully and unreasonably overruled Appellant's Motion in Limine which requested that the Board prohibit Patrick Bush, an individual not licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio, from making legal arguments and cross-examining witnesses on behalf of Appellee on the basis that Patrick Bush had a fiduciary relationship with the Appellee. 2. The Board of Tax Appeals erred when it unlawfully and unreasonably considered the legal arguments of Patrick Bush, member and president of Richman Properties LLC, on behalf of Richman Properties LLC in reaching its Decision and Order. 3. The Board of Tax Appeals erred when it unlawfully and unreasonably allowed Patrick Bush, member and president of Appellee LLC, to Cross Examine Appellants' witness, 4. The Board of Tax Appeals erred when it unlawfully and unreasonably utilized a two year old sale as best evidence of value even though it acknowledged that the character of the property had changed so much since that sale that it could not properly adjust the property value reached by the Board of Revision.

5 5. The Board of Tax Appeals erred when it used an arm's Iength sale as the best indication of value but unlawfully and unreasonably failed to consider the fact that the subject parcels had been split from two parcels into four parcels between the date of the sale at issue and the tax lien date. Respectfully submitted, DEAN HOLNTAIY Medina County Prosecutor Nathan. Cames # Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 72 Public Square Medina, Ohio T;(330) F:(330) Attorneys for Appellants: Medina County Board of Revision and Medina County Auditor 3

6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Notice ofappeal was sent by certified U.S. Mail, this 4th day of March, 2013, to the following: RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, CIO PATRICK T. BUSH, MEMBER (Pro Se Appellant) Industrial Parkway Cleveland, Ohio (216) PRO SE APPELLANT JOSEPH W. TESTA Tax Commissioner of Ohio Department of Taxation 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH (614) TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO NATHAN E. CARNES ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Attorney for Appellants, Medina County Board of Revision and Medina County Auditor

7 dr ^ OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS Richman Properties LLC, ) CASE NO W-2607 } Appellant, ) (REAL PROPERTY TAX) ) vs. } DECISION AND ORDER ) Medina County Board of Revision and ) Medina County Auditor, ) APPEARANCES: Appellees. ) ) For the Appellant - Patrick J. Bush, Member Industrial Parkway Cleveland, Ohio For the County - Dean Holman Ftppellees Medina County Prosecuting Attorney Carol Shockley Assistant Prosecuting Attaeraey 72 Public Square Medina, Ohio Entered ^ Mr. Wiiliaxrtson and Mr. Johrendt concur. The above-named appellant, Richman Properties LLC, appeals from a decision of the Medina County Board of Revision ("BOR"), which determined the true and taxable values of the subject properties for tax year We proceed to consider this matter based upon the notice of appeaf, ' the statutory transcript certified to this board by the BOR and the testimony and other evidence received at the hearing convened by this board. The appellant submitted a binder of materials as its notice of appeal. Because the appellant relied upon the documents contained in the binder at the hearing before us, the binder was marked as Appellant's Exhibit t. l 5

8 p t to be as follows: For the 2008 tax year, the auditor determined the values of the property Parcel No C Land Building Total Parcel No C Land Building Total Parcel No C Land Building Total Parcel No C Land Building Total True Value $35,120 $0 $35,120 True Va1ue $56,770 $108,600 $165,370 True Value $65,620 $167,870 $233,490 True Value $34,490 $0 $34,490 Taxable Value $12,290 $0 $12,290 Taxable Value $19,870 $38,010 $57,880 Taxable Value $22,970 $58,750 $81,720 Taxable Value $12,070 $0 $12,070 On March 18, 2009, Patrick J. Bush filed the complaints on behalf of the appellant, as "member president," requesting reductions to the subject properties' true and taxable values. By way of the complaints, the appellant argued that reductions were warranted because "[r]ecent sale was arms length (sic) transaction which has been deemed as best determinant of value by courts." The complaint further revealed that the subject properties had been the subject of a transfer for $135,000 on':viay 8, The BOR held a hearing on the matters2 and subsequently voted to decrease the true value for some, but not all, of the subject properties. Thereafter, the appellant appealed to this board. 2 The digitaf audio recording of the BOR hearing, which is contained in the statutory trarzscript, did not function properly. As a result, we were unable to review the full hearing record below. 2 6

9 At the hearing before this board,3 Mr. Bush testified that the subject properties were "a 20-acre parcel that was divided into two lots, 7 and 14 acres roughly or something like that. There were two started dwellings on these two parcels. Neither was completed. *** So they are houses that were started and sat fallow for 20 years." He further testified that his brother and partner discovered that the parcels were for sale after seeing a sign in the yard. After negotiating the price, the Bush brothers purchased the two parcels for $135,000 on June 9, On or about December 13, 2007, the two parcels were subdivided into the four subject properties.4 To support the appellant's position, Mr. Bush submitted copies of the purchase and settlement agreements to demonstrate details of the sale. The county appellees argued that the record was unclear whether the subject properties were the subject of an arm's-length transaction and, therefore, the $135,000 purchase price was not the best indication of value. Medina County Appraisal Supervisor, Kathleen McGlone, testified in support of the BOR's decision to reduce the true values for two of the subject properties based upon the level of completion of the improvements on those particular parcels. Ms. McGlone also a At the hearing before this board began, the county appellees presented a motion in limine to pmhibit Mr, Bush's representation of the appellant property owner, specifically Mr. Bush's ability to make legal arguments, examine witnesses or "other tasks that may only be performed by an attotrtey," as unauthorized practice of law pursuant to Dayton Supply &?'oo! Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Cty; Bd of Revl,rion, T t i Ohio St,3d 367. Hearing Record at 6. The attorney examiner assigned to the case deferred ruling on the motion and counsel for the county appellees made a continuing objection on the issue. Because Mr. Bush is a member of the appellant, a limited liability company, we find that he has a fiduciary relationship with the appellant akin to that of a corporate officer as explained by the court in Dayton Supply, supra, Thus, the county appeltees' objection is overruled and the motion in limine is dettied. 4 The property record card for parcel number 04-09C indicates that there was a change in ownership, Otherwise, the record is void of evidence demanstrating when the remaining subject properties transferred ownership to the appellant, However, because each property record card lists the appellant as the owner of the subject properties, we presume that "Richman Properties i:,lc" was the owner at the time the complaints were filed. 3 7

10 tesi 'ified that she was unable to find an MLS listing for the subject properties for tax year 2006; however, she did adnzit that she did not know whether the realtor involved in t^e transaction was a member of the MLS. We begin by noting that a party who asserts a right to an increase or de irease in the value of real property has the burden to prove the right to the value assi rted. Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 68 Ohio 5t.^d 336; Crow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofrevision (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 552; Mentor Ex ^ mpted Vrllage Bd.Qf Edn. v. Lake Cty. Bd of IZevision (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 318. Co equently, it is incumbent upon an appellant challenging the decision of a board of revision to come forward and offer evidence which demonstrates its right to the value sought. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., supra; Springfield Local Bd of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision ( 1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 493. This board is charged with the res^onsibility of determining value based upon the evidence before us, where such evidence must be found to be both competent and probative. Strongsville Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision ( 1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 402, 405; Zukowski v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision ( 1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 503, 504; Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Bd. of Revision ( 1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, paragraph two of the syllabus. The Ohio Supreme Court has consistently held that the best evidence of true value of real property is an actual, recent, arm's-length sale. Specifically, in Berea City School Dist. Bd of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty: Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 269, the Supreme Court held "that when the property has been the subject of a recent arm's-length sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer, the sale price of the property shall be `the true value for taxation purposes.' R.C " Berea,

11 a Ohio S0d at 17. Upon the presentation of basic evidence of the sale and the sale price, "a rebuttable presumption exists that the sale has met all the requirements that characterize true value." Cincinnati Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 325, 327. Typically, "the only rebuttal lies in challenging whether the elements of recency and arm's-length character between a willing seller and a willing buyer are genuinely present for that particular sale." Cummins Property Servs., L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofrevision, 117 Ohio St.3d 516, 2008-Ohio-1473, at S(13. Walters v. Knox Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 47 Ohio St.3d 23, outlines the following elements which comprise an arm's-length sale: 1) the sale is voluntary; 2) it generally takes place in an open market; and 3) the parties act in their own self interests. Furthermore, whether a sale is sufficiently "recent" to or too "remote" from tax lien date to quaiify as the "best evidence" of value is not decided exclusively upon temporal proximity> Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edra. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (2009), 124 Ohio St.3d 27 at 132. Evident from numerous Supreme Court decisions, the mere passage of some months between sale and tax lien dates is not sufficient cause to disregard a sale. See, e.g., HK New Plan Exchange Property Owner II, LLC v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (2009), 122 Ohio St.3d 438 (value based upon sale occurring twenty-four months prior to tax lien date); Lakota Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Butler Cty: Bd. of Revision (2006), 108 Ohio St.3d 310 (value based upon its sale which occurred twenty-two months after tax lien date). This board has also found a sale occurring 40 months prior to tax lien date to be a

12 valid indicator of value. McCarty v. Clark Cty. Bd of Revision (Sept. 21, 2010), BTA No V-2302, unreported. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the subject properties' $135,000 purchase price in May 2006 is the best indication of value for the subject properties for tax year While the county appellees challenged whether the subject properties were the subject of an arm's-length transaction, they failed to come forward with competent and probative evidence to support such a finding. Therefore, we can dascern no evidence to suggest that the purchase of the subject properties was anything other than an arm's-length transaction. The board cannot consider other evidence of value where there exists a qualifydng sale. See, e.g., Pingue v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 62, 64 ("It is only when the purchase price does not reflect true value that a review of independent appraisals based upon other factors is appropriate.") However, because the character of the subject properties had changed since the transfer of May 2006, i.e., the two parcels that were the subject of the transfer have since been subdivided into four parcels, we are unable to allocate the purchase price between the subject properties. Accordingly, we remand this case to the BOR to properly allocate the $135,000 purchase price between the subject properties, and between land and building where appropriate, in accordance with FirstCal Indtrstrial 24cquasitions LLC v. Franklin Cty. Bd: of'revision (2010), 125 Ohio St. 3d 485g 201f1-Ohio

13 I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and complete copy of the action taken by the Board of Tax Appeals of the State of Ohio and entered upon its joumai this day, with respect to the captioned matter. _ ^'^+ : `^``y^^.a..,tim iiliamso Chairperson 11

14 i r fl ECEIVEfl FEB ^^.^ _..._. 12

15 RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, C/O PATRICK T. BUSH, MEMBER SUPREME COURT CASE CASE NUMBER: V. Appellant, BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CASE NO W-2607 MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION AND THE MEDINA COUNTY AUDITOR Appellants. PRAECIPE The Appellants, Medina County Board of Revision and the Medina County Auditor respectfully request the Board of Tax Appeals to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio, a certified transcript of the proceedings of the Board of Tax Appeals pertaining to the above-captioned appeal and all evidence considered by the Board in making its decision as provided by R.C Respectfully submitted, DEAN HOLiV1AN Medina County Prosecutor NATHAN E. CARNES # Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 72 Public Square Medina, Ohio T:(330) F:(330) Em.ait: ncarnes@medinaco.org Attorneys for Appellees: Medina County Board of Revision and Medina County Auditor 13

16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Praecipe was sent by certified U.S. Mail, this 4th day of March, 2013, to the following: RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, C/O PATRICK T. BUSH, MEMBER (Pro Se Appellant) Industrial Parkway Cleveland, Ohio (216) PRO SE APPELLANT JOSEPH W.TESTA Tax Commissioner of Ohio Department of Taxation 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH (614) TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO NATHAN E. CARNES ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorrzey Attorney for Appellants, Medina County Board of Revision and Medina County Auditor 14

17 RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, ClO PATRICK T. BUSH, MEMBER SUPREME COURT CASE CASE NUMBER: V. Appellant, BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CASE NO W-2607 MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION AND THE MEDINA COUNTY AUDITOR Appellants. PROOF OF FILING The Appellants, Medina County Board of Revision and the Medina County Auditor hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Praecipe, and Demand for Filing Certified Transcript of the Record Pursuant to R.C was filed with the Supreme Court on March 4, 2013 and was filed with the Board of Tax Appeals on March 4, 2013, pursuant to R.C Respectfully submitted, DEAN HOLMAN Medina County Prosecutor NATHAN E. CARNES # Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 72 Public Square Medina, Ohio T:(330) F:(330) ncarnes@medinaco.org Attorneys for Appellees: Medina County Board of Revision and Medina County Auditor 15

18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Proof of Filing was sent by certified U.S. Mail, this 4th day of March, 2013, to the following: RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, C1O PATRICK T. BUSH, MEMBEB. (Pro Se Appellant) Industrial Parkway Cleveland, Ohio (216) PRO SE APPELLANT JOSEPH W.TESTA Tax Commissioner of Ohio Department of Taxation 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH (614) TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO NATHAN E. CARNES ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Attorney for Appellants, Medina County Board of Revision and Medina County Auditor 16

19 RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, C!O PATRICK T. BUSH, MEMBER SUPREME COURT CASE CASE NUMBER: V. Appellant, BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CASE NO W-2607 MEDINA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION AND THE MEDINA COUNTY AUDITOR Appellants. APPELLANT'S DEMAND FOR FILING CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD P[JRSUAiNT TO SECTION R.C The Appellants, Medina County Board of Revision and the Medina County Auditor respectfully request Board of Tax Appeals to file a certified transcript of the proceedings of the above-captioned matter with the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. 65 South Front Street, 8h Floor, Columbus, Ohio Respectfully submitted, DEAN HOLMAN Medina County Prosecutor NATHAN E. CARNES # Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 72 Public Square Medina, Ohio T:(330) F:(330) ncarnes@znedinaco.org Attorn.eys for Appellees: Medina County Board of Revision and Medina County Auditor 17

20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Appellant'.r Demand for Filing Certified Transcript of the Record Pursuant to R. C was sent by certified U.S. Mail, this 4th day of March, 2013, to the following: RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, C/O PATRICK T. BUSH, MEMBER (Pro Se Appellant) Industrial Parkway Cleveland, Ohio (216) PRO SE APPELLANT JOSEPH W. TESTA Tax Commissioner of Ohio Department of Taxation 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH (614) TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO NATHAN E. CARNES ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Attorney for Appellants, Medina County Board of Revision and Medina County Auditor 18

21 Lawriter - Q _RC Complaint against valuation or assessment -... hitp://codes.ohio.govlorc/5715.1' Complaint against valuation or assessment - determination of complaint - tender of tax - determination of common level of assessment. (A) As used in this section, "member" has the same meaning as in section 1705,01 of the Revised Code. (1) Subject to division (A)(2) of this section, a complaint against any of the following determinations for the current tax year shall be filed with the county auditor on or before the thirty-first day of March of the ensuing tax year or the date of closing of the collection for the first half of real and public utility property taxes for the current tax year, whichever is later: (a) Any classification made under section of the Revised Code; (b) Any determination made under section or 5713,35 of the Revised Code; (c) Any recoupment charge levied under section 5713,35 of the Revised Code; (d) The determination of the total valuation or assessment of any parcel that appears on the tax list, except parcels assessed by the tax commissioner pursuant to section of the Revised Code; (e) The determination of the total valuation of any parcel that appears on the agricultural land tax list, except parcels assessed by the tax commissioner pursuant to section of the Revised Code; (f) Any determination made under division (A) of section of the Revised Code. If such a complaint is filed by mail or certified mail, the date of the United States postmark placed on the envelope or sender's receipt by the postal service shall be treated as the date of filing. A private meter postmark on an envelope is not a valid postmark for purposes of establishing the filing date. Any person owning taxable real property in the county or in a taxing district with territory in the county; such a person's spouse; an individual who is retained by such a person and who holds a designation from a professional assessment organization, such as the institute for professionals in taxation, the national council of property taxation, or the international association of assessing officers; a public accountant who holds a permit under section 4701,10 of the Revised Code, a general or residential real estate appraiser licensed or certified under Chapter of the Revised Code, or a real estate broker licensed under Chapter 4735, of the Revised Code, who is retained by such a person; if the person is a firm, company, association, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation, an officer, a salaried employee, a partner, or a member of that person; if the person is a trust, a trustee of the trust; the board of county commissioners; the prosecuting attorney or treasurer of the county; the board of township trustees of any township with territory within the county; the board of education of any school district with any territory in the county; or the mayor or legislative authority of any municipal corporation with any territory in the county may file such a complaint regarding any such determination affecting any real property in the county, except that a person owning taxable real property in another county may file such a complaint only with regard to any such determination affecting real property in the county that is located in the same taxing district as that person's real property is located. The county auditor shall present to the county board of revision all complaints filed with the auditor. (2) As used in division (A)(2) of this section, "interim period" means, for each county, the tax year to which section of the Revised Code applies and each subsequent tax year until the tax year in which that section applies again. 19

22 Lawriter - ORC Complaint against valuation or assessment ohio,gov/orc/ l No person, board, or officer shall file a complaint against the valuation or assessment of any parcel that appears on the tax list if it filed a complaint against the valuation or assessment of that parcel for any prior tax year in the same interim period, unless the person, board, or officer alleges that the valuation or assessment should be changed due to one or more of the following circumstances that occurred after the tax lien date for the tax year for which the prior complaint was filed and that the circumstances were not taken into consideration with respect to the prior complaint: (a) The property was sold in an arm's length transaction, as described in section of the Revised Code; - (b) The property lost value due to some casualty; (c) Substantial improvement was added to the property; (d) An increase or decrease of at least fifteen per cent in the property's occupancy has had a substantial economic impact on the property. (3) If a county board of revision, the board of tax appeals, or any court dismisses a complaint filed under this section or section of the Revised Code for the reason that the act of filing the complaint was the unauthorized practice of law or the person filing the complaint was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the party affected by a decrease in valuation or the party's agent, or the person owning taxable real property in the county or in a taxing district with territory in the county, may refile the complaint, notwithstanding division (A)(2) of this section. (4) Notwithstanding division (A)(2) of this section, a person, board, or officer may file a complaint against the valuation or assessment of any parcel that appears on the tax list if it filed a complaint against the valuation or assessment of that parcel for any prior tax year in the same interim period if the person, board, or officer withdrew the complaint before the complaint was heard by the board. (B) Within thirty days after the last date such complaints may be filed, the auditor shall give notice of each complaint in which the stated amount of overvaluation, undervaluation, discriminatory valuation, illegal valuation, or incorrect determination is at least seventeen thousand five hundred dollars to each property owner whose property is the subject of the complaint, if the complaint was not filed by the owner or the owner's spouse, and to each board of education whose school district may be affected by the complaint. Within thirty days after receiving such notice, a board of education; a property owner; the owner's spouse; an individual who is retained by such an owner and who holds a designation from a professional assessment organization, such as the institute for professionals in taxation, the national council of property taxation, or the international association of assessing officers; a public accountant who holds a permit under section of the Revised Code, a general or residential real estate appraiser licensed or certified under Chapter of the Revised Code, or a real estate broker licensed under Chapter of the Revised Code, who is retained by such a person; or, if the property owner is a firm, company, association, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or trust, an officer, a salaried employee, a partner, a member, or trustee of that property owner, may file a complaint in support of or objecting to the amount of alleged overvaluation, undervaluation, discriminatory valuation, illegal valuation, or incorrect determination stated in a previously filed complaint or objecting to the current valuation. Upon the filing of a complaint under this division, the board of education or the property owner shall be made a party to the action. (C) Each board of revision shall notify any complainant and also the property owner, if the property owner's address is known, when a complaint is filed by one other than the property owner, by certified mail, not less than ten days prior to the hearing, of the time and place the same will be heard. The board 20

23 Lawriter - ORC Complaint against valuation or assessment -.,. I S of revision shall hear and render its decision on a complaint within ninety days after the filing thereof with the board, except that if a complaint is filed within thirty days after receiving notice from the auditor as provided in division (B) of this section, the board shall hear and render its decision within ninety days after such filing. (D) The determination of any such complaint shall relate back to the date when the lien for taxes or recoupment charges for the current year attached or the date as of which liability for such year was determined. Liability for taxes and recoupment charges for such year and each succeeding year until the complaint is finally determined and for any penalty and interest for nonpayment thereof within the time required by law shall be based upon the determination, valuation, or assessment as finally determined. Each complaint shail state the amount of overvaluation, undervaluation, discriminatory valuation, illegal valuation, or incorrect classification or determination upon which the complaint is based. The treasurer shall accept any amount tendered as taxes or recoupment charge upon property concerning which a complaint is then pending, computed upon the claimed valuation as set forth in the complaint. If a complaint filed under this secti"on for the current year is not determined by the board within the time prescribed for such determination, the complaint and any proceedings in relation thereto shall be continued by the board as a valid complaint for any ensuing year until such complaint is finally determined by the board or upon any appeal from a decision of the board. In such case, the original complaint shall continue in effect without further filing by the original taxpayer, the original taxpayer's assignee, or any other person or entity authorized to file a complaint under this section. (E) If a taxpayer files a complaint as to the classification, valuation, assessment, or any determination affecting the taxpayer's own property and tenders less than the full amount of taxes or recoupment charges as finally determined, an interest charge shall accrue as follows: (1) If the amount finally determined is less than the amount billed but more than the amount tendered, the taxpayer shall pay interest at the rate per annum prescribed by section of the Revised Code, computed from the date that the taxes were due on the difference between the amount finally determined and the amount tendered. This interest charge shall be in lieu of any penalty or interest charge under section of the Revised Code unless the taxpayer failed to file a complaint and tender an amount as taxes or recoupment charges within the time required by this section, in which case section 32,3.121 of the Revised Code applies. (2) If the amount of taxes finally determined is equal to or greater than the amount billed and more than the amount tendered, the taxpayer shall pay interest at the rate prescribed by section of the Revised Code from the date the taxes were due on the difference between the amount finally determined and the amount tendered, such interest to be in lieu of any interest charge but in addition to any penalty prescribed by section of the Revised Code. (F) Upon request of a complainant, the tax commissioner shall determine the common level of assessment of real property in the county for the year stated in the request that is not valued under section of the Revised Code, which common level of assessment shall be expressed as a percentage of true value and the common level of assessment of lands valued under such section, which common level of assessment shall also be expressed as a percentage of the current agricultural use value of such lands. Such determination shall be made on the basis of the most recent available sales ratio studies of the commissioner and such other factual data as the commissioner deems pertinent. (G) A complainant shall provide to the board of revision all information or evidence within the complainant's knowledge or possession that affects the real property that is the subject of the complaint. A complainant who fails to provide such information or evidence is precluded from introducing it on 21

24 Lawriter - ORC Complaint against valuation or assessment =,.. http;//codes.ohio,gov/orc/ ^ appeal to the board of tax appeals or the court of common pleas, except that the board of tax appeals or court may admit and consider the evidence if the complainant shows good cause for the complainant s failure to provide the information or evidence to the board of revision. (H) In case of the pendency of any proceeding in court based upon an alleged excessive, discriminatory, or illegal valuation or incorrect classification or determination, the taxpayer may tender to the treasurer an amount as taxes upon property computed upon the claimed valuation as set forth in the complaint to the court. The treasurer may accept the tender. If the tender is not accepted, no penalty shall be assessed because of the nonpayment of the full taxes assessed. Amended by 129th General AssemblyFile No.141,H8 509, 1, eff. 9/28J2012. Effective Date: ;

25 L.awriter - ORC County auditor to determine taxable valh e of... httpjlcodes.ohio.gov/orc/5713, County auditor to determine taxable value of real property= The county auditor, from the best sources of information available, shall determine, as nearly as practicable, the true value of the fee simple estate, as if unencumbered but subject to any effects from the exercise of police powers or from other governmental actions, of each separate tract, lot, or parcel of real property and of buildings, structures, and improvements located thereon and the current agricultural use value of land valued for tax purposes in accordance with section of the Revised Code, in every district, according to the rules prescribed by this chapter and section of the Revised Code, and in accordance with the uniform rules and methods of valuing and assessing real property as adopted, prescribed, and promulgated by the tax commssioner. The auditor shall determine the taxable value of all real property by reducing its true or current agricultural use value by the percentage ordered by the commissioner. In determining the true value of any tract, lot, or parcel of real estate under this section, if such tract, lot, or parcel has been the subject of an arm's length sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer within a reasonable length of time, either before or after the tax lien date, the auditor may consider the sale price of such tract, lot, or parcel to be the true value for taxation purposes. However, the sale price in an arm's length transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer shall not be considered the true value of the property sold if subsequent to the sale: (A) The tract, lot, or parcel of real estate loses value due to some casualty; (B) An improvement is added to the property. Nothing in this section or section of the Revised Code and no rule adopted under section of the Revised Code shall require the county auditor to change the true value in money of any property in any year except a year in which the tax commissioner is required to determine under section of the Revised Code whether the property has been assessed as required by f aw. The county auditor shall adopt and use a real property record approved by the commissioner for each tract, lot, or parcel of real property, setting forth the true and taxable value of land and, in the case of land valued in accordance with section of the Revised Code, its current agricultural use value, the number of acres of arable land, permanent pasture land, woodland, and wasteland in each tract, lot, or parcel. The auditor shall record pertinent information and the true and taxable value of each building, structure, or improvement to land, which value shall be included as a separate part of the total value of each tract, lot, or parcel of real property. Amended by 129th General AssemblyFile No.186,HB 510, 1, eff. 3/27/2013. Amended by 129th General Assemblyl"ile No.127,HB 487, , eff. 9/10/2012. Effective Date: Related Legislative Provision; See 129th Genera/Assemb/yFi/e No.186,H8 510, 3 See 129th General AssemblyFfle No.127,NB 487,

26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Appendix to Appellants' Merit brief was sent by certified U.S. Mail, this 5th day of July, 2013, to the following: RICHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, C/O PATRICK T. BUSH, MEMBER (ProSeAppellee) Industrial Parkway Cleveland, Ohio (216) PRO SE APPELLA?viT JOSEPH W.TESTA Tax Commissioner of Ohio Department of Taxation 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH (614) TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO NATI-IAN E. CARNES ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attomey Attorney for Appellants, Medina County Board of Revision and Medina County Auditor