IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LICKING HEIGHTS LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Meijer Stores Limited Partnership, v. Appellant, Case No Cross-Appeal Franklin County Board of Revision, Franklin County Auditor, Licking Heights Local School District, and the Tax Commissioner of the State of Ohio, and Appellees, Marvin J. & Ursula F. Siesel, Shops at Waggoner LLC, and Fifth Third Bank, Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals BTA Case Nos T-441 and 2005-AT-443 rv Appellees. NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LICKING HEIGHTS LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Nicholas M.J. Ray ( ) COUNSEL OF RECORD Jay P.Siegel( ) Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings Co. LPA 3001 Bethel Road, Suite 208 Columbus, OH (614) Attorneys for Appellant Meijer Stores Limited Partnership Mark H. Gillis ( ) COUNSEL OF RECORD Jeffrey A. Rich Rich Crites & Dittmer, LLC 300 East Broad Street, Suite 300 Columbus, OH (614) Attorneys for Appellee and Cross-Appellant Licking Heights Local School District C1 ia(il4 ^J^ i;()11^it SUPl^EIUIc ^^^Ul^^ ^, ^HlQ ^^-- ^_--

2 William J. Stehle ( ) COUNSEL OF RECORD Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 373 South High Street Columbus, OH (614) Attorney for Appellees Franklin County Board of Revision and Franklin County Auditor Nancy Rogers ( ) Ohio Attorney General 30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH (614) Attorney for Appellee Richard.A. Levin, Tax Commissioner of Ohio

3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Meijer Stores Limited Partnership, Appellant, Case No V. Cross-Appeal Franklin County Board of Revision, Franklin County Auditor, Licking Heights Local School District, and the Tax Commissioner of the State of Ohio, and Appellees, Marvin J. & Ursula F. Siesel, Shops at Waggoner LLC, and Fifth Third Bank, Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals Case Nos T-441 & 443 Appellees. NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LICKING HEIGHTS LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Now come the Appellee and Cross-Appellant, the Board of Education of the Licking Heights Local School District, and gives notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio from the decision of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals in the case ofmeijer Stores LimitedPartnership v. Franklin County Board of Revision, Franklin County Auditor, and the Licking Heights School District Board of Education, BTA Case Nos T-41 I and 2005-T-443, rendered on May 27, 2008, copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Errors complained of therein are set forth herein as Exhibit A. 1

4 ark H. Gillis ( ) Jeffrey A. Rich ( ) Rich Crites & Dittmer, LLC 300 East Broad Street, Suite 300 Columbus, Ohio (614) Fax: (614) Attorneys for Appellee and Cross-Appellant Licking Heights Local School District 2

5 EXHIBIT A - ERRORS COMPLAINED OF The errors complained of are the following: 1. The BTA erred in failing to hold and determine that the approach to value used by the Appellant property owner's appraiser, Lorms, violated the "uniform rule" provision of Article XII, Section 2, of the Ohio Constitution in that the approach would value a brand new property at a small faction of its actual worth. 2. The BTA erred in failing to hold and determine that the "uniform rule" prevents the valuation for real property tax purposes of a brand new Meijer store that cost over $50 per square foot to build at only $14.77 per square foot ($2,850,445 divided by 197,977 SF). Such a grossly low valuation of a brand new building is not consistent with the "uniform rule" of valuation set forth in Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution and would be unfair to other taxpayers in Franklin County (whose taxes will actually increase under R.C if a reduction in value is granted to Meijer). 3. The BTA erred in failing to hold and determine that the cost approach was the best evidence of the true value, and the only evidence of the true value, of a brand new Meijer store for real property tax purposes. 4. The BTA erred in failing to hold and determine that the market and income approaches used by Lorms, which were based on the sale and rental of abandoned, vacated, second and thirdgeneration stores, do not provide any evidence that any functional and economic obsolescence in a brand new Meijer store. 3

6 5. The BTA erred in failing to apply and follow this Court's decision in Meijer, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd ofrevision (1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 181, 661 N.E.2d 1056, to the effect that no obsolescence exists in a brand new Meijer store and where the Court had rejected an identical valuation approach to the one used by Robin Lorms in the present appeal. 6. The BTA erred in failing to hold that the true value of a new Meijer store cannot legally and constitutionally be determined using an appraisal theory that bases the value on the sale or rental of abandoned, vacated, second and third-generation stores, and underperforming stores abandoned in bankruptcy, that were not similar to or comparable in any manner, including economically comparable, to the new Meijer store involved in this appeal, and that were not used for the same highest and best use as the brand new, fully-operational, first-generation, Meijer store. 7. The BTA erred in failing to hold and determine that this Court's decisions in Berea City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofrevi.rion,106 Ohio St.3d 269, 2005 Ohio 4979, 834 N.E.2d 782, and Cincinnati Sch. Dist. Bd ofeduc. v. Hamilton County Bd. ofrevision, 2008 Ohio 2450, required the BTA to reject the appraisal of Appellant's appraiser (Lorms) specifically because this Court held that the sale prices of the properties that Lorms refused to rely upon do reflect the true value of the properties involved in those sales. 8. The BTA erred in failing to hold and determine that the true value of the Meijer property cannot be based on the sales of properties with deed restrictions. 4

7 PROOF OF SERVICE ON BOARD OF TAX APPEALS I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing notice of appeal (cross-appeal) was served upon the Clerk of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, as is evidenced by its filing stamp set forth hereon. Mark H. Gillis ( ) Attorney for Cross-Appellant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing notice of appeal (cross-appeal) was served upon William Stehle, Franklin County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 373 South High Street, 20th Floor, Columbus, Ohio, 43215, Nancy Rogers, Ohio Attorney General, 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor, Columbus, Ohio, , Counsel for the Tax Commissioner of Ohio, Marvin J. and Ursula F. Siesel, 2868 Hartford Court, San Diego, CA 92117, Shops at Waggoner LLC, 25 Buckingham Court, Burlingame, CA 94010, and Fifth Third Bank, 38 Fountain Square Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45263, and Nicholas M.J. Ray, Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings Co. LPA 3001 Bethel Road, Suite 208, Columbus, Ohio 43220, by certified mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, this 7th day of July, ark H. Gillis ( ) Attorney for Cross-Appellant 5

8 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Meijer Stores Limited Partnership, Appellant, Case No v. Cross-Appeal Franklin County Board of Revision, Franklin County Auditor, et al., and Appellees, Marvin J. & Ursula F. Siesel, Shops at Waggoner LLC, and Fifth Third Bank, Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals Case Nos T-441 & 443 REQUEST TO CERTIFY ORIGINAL PAPERS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO TO: The Clerk of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals: The Cross-Appellant makes this written demand upon the Clerk and this Board to certify the record of its proceedings and the original papers of this Board and statutory transcript of the Board of Revision in the case of Meijer Stores Limited Partnership v. Franklin County Board of Revision, Franklin County Auditor, and the Licking Heights School District Board ofeducation, BTA Case Nos T-411 and 2005-T-443, rendered on May 27, 2008, to the Supreme Court of Ohio within 30 days of service hereof as set forth in R.C Res Ily submitted, ark H. Gillis ( ) 300 East Broad Street, Suite 300 Columbus, Ohio (614) Attorney for Cross-Appellant 6