IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Norman Rafizadeh, ) Case No. APPELLEE, } VS, ) APPEAL FROM OHIO BOARD Franklin County Board of Revision and ) OF TAX APPEALS Franklin County Auditor, ) BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CASE NO Q-772and 2012-Q-773 CASE NO.2012-Q-761and 2012-Q-764 NOTICE OF APPEAL OFJOINT APPELLANTS FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION AND FRANKLIN COUNTTY AUDITOR AND FRANKLIN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION APPELLEE - Norman Rafizadeh, Pro se 2781 Innis Road, unit Al Columbus, Ohio COUNTY APPELLANTS - Ron O'Brien Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney vviillia1v^ J.STEI-I F Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 373 South High Streets, 20TH Floor Columbus, Ohio FOR JOINT APPELLANT - RICH & GILLIS LAW GROUP, LLC OF BORD OF EDUCATION KELLY A. GORRY 6400 Riverside Drive, Suite D U I ^^^ GL't6^K 01 COIC^^ ^EMiE ^O U R -f 0 F OHIO Dublin, Ohio BOARD OF TAX APPLANTS Ms. Margulies, Mr. Johrendt, and Mr..!E\!illiamson Concur.

2 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF JOINT APPELLANTS FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISON AND FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR AND FRANKLIN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION Appellants hereby give notice of appeal as of right, Pursuant to O.R.C& , to the Supreme Court of Ohio from a Decision and Order (hereinafter "Decision ")of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (hereinafter "BTA") journalized in case No.2012-Q-772,2012-Q-773, 2012-Q-761 and 2012-Q-764 on November 20,2012 A true and accurate copy of the decision being appealed is attached here to incorporated by reference. The errors in the Decision of which Joint Appellants complain are set forth as Follows: ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.1: The board of Tax Appeals acted neither reasonable nor lawful and abused its discretion when it failed to find that the Taxpayer's detailed testimony on appraisal evidence constituted well competent and probative evidence of the value of the subject property. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.2: The board of Tax appeals acted neither reasonable nor lawful and abused its discretion when it failed to find that the taxpayer met its burden of proof, when the record contained reliable probative evidence to support the Taxpayer's value of the subject property. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.3: The Board of Tax Appeal s acted unreasonably and unlawfully, and abused its discretion, by finding that the board of Education lack of knowledge on subject appraisal evidence constituted competent and probative evidence of value for the subject property. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.4: The Board of Tax Appeal s acted unreasonably and unlawfully, and abused its discretion, by ignoring, and finding that the board of education did not misrepresenting and nor hold back the knowledge and evidence was obtained from the taxpayer in advance in regard of appraisal of property' s correct tax value. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.5: The Board of Tax appeals Acted unreasonably and unlawfully and abused its discretion by finding that the appraisal evaluation was made by City of Columbus on adjacent Taxpayer's property in accordance with standard appraisal practices does not reflect the market

3 comparison to the adjustments of the Taxpayer's property value, Even though the appraisal was made higher to cover unseen damages. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.6: The board of Tax appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully and abused its discretion, to make a finding and partially vacating the Board of Revision decision and ignoring the true facts which were not examined nor reviewed or considered regarding the reevaluation of the property and furthermore they made a consideration merely based upon earlier year's reevaluation which was then forwarded for the last tax year and unallowable upcoming tax year. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.7: The board of the Tax appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully and abused its discretion, to review presented pictures and the adjustments needed on Board of Revision reevaluation, despite the fact there are well proof of evidence in last eight years of property records, which indicates property was set vacant as exterior walls and roof above, renovation and rehabitation work been halted, due to findings of excessive embedded black mold and mildew in structure throughout the home. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.8: The Board of Tax appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully and abused its discretion, not to correct the Board of Revision property reevaluation errors and no adjustments was made to the property value, by overlooking the evidence on the property, which partially were owned by other party rather than the Tax payer. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.9: TL.,. I I ic 6.,... uv V^ a^u J..F T^ ȧ,n.. a.a.,1u.- -,.^+.^. -,ppċ a^.^cu J uircnacwn in, oh ovi y un i n iu rl u^^^a.r.^..^^ ^ ^n^n^nif^ i^w y nnrl nfli icuri itc rlicrratinn E'1V n...,...,...^...y._r completely ignoring and unsporting assumption on documented and photographs of factors contributed to the lack of habitability and utilization of property and building as a residence since the date of the purchased till present time. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.10: The Board of Tax appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully and abused its discretion, by refusing to consider and acknowledged the approved Franklin County Auditors application for valuation deduction for destroyed or damaged real property which was placed signed and notarized since August 15, ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.11: The Board of Tax appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully and abused its discretion, by manifestly refusing to consider or acknowledge reviewing in depth the City Of Columbus

4 Appraisal which was recognized as unreliable and not a credible document by Board of Education. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NO.12: The Decision and order of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable, unlawful, and abuse of its discretion power because in refusing to consider the testimony of the Taxpayer's and overlooking the years of submitting documented evidences and witnesses to the Board of Revision. The Board Of Tax appeals violates the Taxpayer's right to due process of law and equal protection under Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Of the Constitution of the United States of America, and Article 1,Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution, and violate the Taxpayer's right to due course of law Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution. Respectfully submitted, X Norman Rafizadeh 2781 Innis Rd Columbus,Ohio (614)

5 PROOF OF SERVICE UPON OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS This is to certify that the Notice of Appeal of Norman Rafizadeh, Was filed with the ohio board of Tax Appeals,State Office tower,24t" Floor, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio as evidenced by its date stamp as set forth hereon. ^.. Norman Rafizadeh 2781 Innis Rd Columbus, Ohio (614)

6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this/^' day of December 2012, a copy of the Notice Appeal was send via certified mail to Attorney, William J Stehle, of the Franklin County Board of Revision, 373 s High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, and Ron 0' Brien Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, William J, Stehle. 373 S High Street, 20th Floor Columbus, Ohio attorney Kelly A Gorry,for the Franklin County School Board of Education, 6400 Riverside Drive, Suite D,Dublin, Ohio 43017, Ohio board of tax Appeal, 30 East Broad Street, 24th floor, Sally F, Van Meter, Board Secretary, ^--^ ^ Norman Rafizadeh 2781 Innis Rd Columbus, Ohio (614)

7 OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS Norman Rafizadeh, vs. Appellant, Franklin County Board of Revision, the Franklin County Auditor, and the Board of Education of the Columbus City School District, CASE NOS Q-761 through 2012-Q-764 (REAL PROPERTY TAX) DECISION AND ORDER Appellees. APPEARANCES: For the Appellant - Norman Rafizadeh, pro se 2781 Innis Road Columbus, Ohio For the County - Ron O'Brien ^ Appellees Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney William J. Stehle Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 373 South High Street, 20th Floor Columbus, Ohio Entered For the Appellee Board of Edn. V Ms. Margulies, Mr. Johrendt, and Mr. Williamson concur. - Rich & Gillis Law Group, LLC Kelley A. Gorry 6400 Riverside Drive, Suite D Dublin, Ohio These matters came on to be considered by the Board of Tax Appeals upon four separate notices of appeal filed by the above-named appellant from decisions of the Franklin County Board of Revision. In said decisions, the board of revision determined the taxable value of the subject properties for tax years 2010 and 2011.

8 4 The matters were submitted to the Board of Tax Appeals upon the notices of appeal, the statutory transcript ("S.T.") certified by the Franklin County Auditor, and the record of the hearing before this board ("H.R."). The subject properties are located in the City of Columbus - Columbus City Schools taxing district and are identified on the auditor's records as parcel numbers and The Franklin County Auditor found the true and taxable values of the subject property for tax year 2010 to be as follows: Parcel no Land Building Total TRUE VALUE $ 11,700 $ 50,600 $ 62,300 TAXABLE VALUE $ 4,100 $ 17,710 $ 21,810 Parcel no Land Building Total TRUE VALUE $ 11,700 $ -0- $ 11,700 TAXABLE VALUE $ 4,100 $ -0- $ 4;100 and for tax year 2011 as follows: Parcel no Land Building Total TRUE VALUE $ 13,900 $ 38,600 $ 52,500 TAXABLE VALUE $ 4,870 $ 13,510 $ 18,380 2

9 Parcel no Land Building Total TRUE VALUE $ 13,900 $ -0- $ 13,900 TAXABLE VALUE $ 4,870 $ -0- $ 4,870 Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the Franklin County Board of Revision ("BOR") decided that no change in value was warranted for either parcel for either tax year. Appellant thereafter appealed to this board. The subject properties consist of adjacent parcels improved with a single-family residence and garage. In January 2011 appellant filed a complaint against the valuation of real property requesting that the total value of both parcels be decreased to $18,000. The appellee board of education ("BOE") filed a countercomplaint in May 2011 in support of the auditor's valuations. Mr. Rafizadeh testified at the BOR hearing that the existing home on the property should be demolished because of mold problems; he made an attempt to rehabilitate the property, spending approximately $30,000, but now believes that demolition is the best option.l Ultimately, the BOR decided that appellant failed to meet his burden of proof and made no change to the value of either parcel. Appellant thereafter appealed to this board. At the outset, we must first address the propriety of the BOR's decisions as to tax year The record indicates that appellant filed the underlying complaint in this matter for tax year However, the BOR issued decisions on February 22, t Several references were made at the BOR hearing to evidence on a USB drive submitted by Mr. Rafizadeh. However, no such information appears in the statutory transcript and it was not introduced at this board's hearing. 3

10 2012 valuing the properties for both tax year 2010 and 2011, a year still open to challenge through the complaint process provided for by R.C Indeed, the parties indicated at this board's hearing that appellant did file complaints challenging the properties' values for tax year H.R. at This board has previously addressed the propriety of the Franklin County Board of Revision's attempt to exercise jurisdiction over a tax year still subject to challenge by complaint, harmonizing R.C (A), which authorizes certain persons to file complaints with county boards of revisions, and R.C (D), which addresses the effect of a pending complaint upon subsequent tax years, concluding that the latter provision does not preclude a valid complaint from establishing jurisdiction in a later tax year. We have previously directed the BOR to not purport-to exercise jurisdiction over a year for which a complaint may be, and ultimately is, filed, since such filing renders the earlier decision for the "open tax year" null and void. See, e.g., Bd. of Edn. of the South-Western City Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Sept. 28, 2007), BTA No V-332, unreported, settled on appeal, 06/12/2009 Case Announcements, 122 Ohio St. 3d 1404, 2009-Ohio-2745; Achilles Enterprises Ltd. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofrevision (Feb 7, 2012), BTA No K-403, unrepor'led. We therefore find the BOR exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued decisions on February 22, 2012 purportedly determining the value of the subject properties for tax year 2011, a year for which a valid complaint could be, and was in fact, filed. Accordingly, BTA Nos Q-762 and 2012-Q-764 are hereby remanded 4

11 to the BOR with instructions to vacate its February 22, 2012 decisions regarding the valuation of the subject properties for tax year We begin our review of the remaining appeals by noting that a party who asserts a right to an increase or decrease in the value of real property has the burden to prove the right to the value asserted. Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision ( 1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 336; Crow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofrevision (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 55; Mentor Exempted Village Bd. of Edn. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 318. Consequently, 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; Springl'zeld Local Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision ( 1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 493. Once an appellant has presented competent and probative evidence of value, other parties asserting a different value then have a corresponding burden of providing sufficient evidence to rebut the appellant's evidence. Springli'eld Local Bd. of Edn., supra; lvientor Exerripteu' i'iiiuge Bu'. uf Eun., supia. Mr. Rafizadeh's testimony before this board was essentially the same as before the BOR; he reiterated that the absence of sewers in the area and the presence of mold throughout the home render the improvements valueless. He explained that his opinion of value for both parcels is based on the value of the land alone. H.R. at In Throckmorton v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. ofrevision (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 227, the Supreme Court addressed the burden attendant to advancing claims similar to those now made by appellant, emphasizing that a party must demonstrate more than the 5

12 mere existence of adverse factors, but also the impact they have upon the property's value. See, also, Gupta v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 397. The court's decision in Throckmorton mirrored this board's own reasoning in Haydu v. Portage Cty. Bd ofrevision (June 18, 1993), BTA No H-576, unreported: "A recitation of defects in a taxpayer's property, without more, is not especially helpful in determining a (lower) valuation. It is also necessary to establish the diminuation [sic] in value caused by the defects, or some evidence of the value of the property as so diminished. Appellant has established to our satisfaction that there are detrimental aspects to the subject property (which, however, are shared by his neighbors to a large degree, and to certain of the comparables) but he has utilized none of the approaches to value that would allow us to determine a value for the property as affected by the defects." Id. at 7. Based upon the foregoing, we find that appellant failed to present competent and probative evidence in support of his requested decreases in value. Accordingly, we find the value of the property as of January 1, 2010, shall be as rpv;m zlv dpterminerl hv the anditor and retained bv the board of revision. as follows: t,..,...,»^_^»_ -_ ^ _ , - Parcel no Land Building Total TRUE VALUE $ 11,700 $ 50,600 $ 62,300 TAXABLE VALUE $ 4,100 $ 17,710 $ 21,810 Parcel no Land Building Total TRUE VALUE $ 11,700 $ -0 $ 11,700 TAXABLE VALUE $ 4,100 $ -0- $ 4,100 6

13 It is the order of the Board of Tax Appeals that the Franklin County Auditor list and assess the subject parcels in accordance with this decision and order. 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 journal this day, with respect to the captioned matter. Sally F. Van Meter, Board Secretary 7

14 OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS Norman Rafizadeh, vs. Appellant, Franklin County Board of Revision and the Franklin County Auditor, CASE NOS Q-772 and 2012-Q-773 (REAL PROPERTY TAX) DECISION AND ORDER Appellees. APPEARANCES: For the Appellant - Norman Rafizadeh, pro se 2781 Innis Road Columbus, Ohio For the County - Ron O'Brien Appellees Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney William J. Stehle Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 373 South High Street, 20th Floor Columbus, Ohio Entered V Ms. Margulies, Mr. Johrendt, and Mr. Williamson concur. These matters came on to be considered by the Board of Tax Appeals upon two separate notices of appeal filed by the above-named appellant from decisions of the Franklin County Board of Revision. In said decisions, the board of revision determined the taxable value of the subject real property for tax years 2010 and The matters were submitted to the Board of Tax Appeals upon the notices of appeal, the statutory transcript ("S.T.") certified by the Franklin County Auditor, and the record of the hearing before this board ("H.R.").

15 The subject property is located in the City of Columbus - Columbus City Schools taxing district and is identified on the auditor's records as parcel number The Franklin County Auditor found the true and taxable values of the subject property for tax year 2010 to be as follows: Land Building Total TRUE VALUE $ 22,100 $ -0- $ 22,100 TAXABLE VALUE $ 7,740 $ -0- $ 7,740 and for tax year 2011 as follows: Land Building Total TRUE VALUE $ 21,300 $ -0- $ 21,300 TAXABLE VALUE $ 7,460 $ -0- $ 7,460 The subject property is a 0.76-acre vacant parcel. In January 2011 appellant filed a complaint against the valuation of real property requesting a decrease in the property's total true value to $6,000 based on a "land appraisal by city attorney's office," "lack of storm and sanitary sewer system," and "drastit[sic] devalue on real estate and economic impact." S.T., Ex. 1. Mr. Rafizadeh appeared and testified at the BOR hearing, indicating that he cannot build on the subject property because there is no sewer. In addition, the city purchased one-third of the land several years prior for $1,800.1 Ultimately, the BOR concluded that appellant failed to meet his burden of proof and found no change in value warranted. i Several references were made at the BOR hearing to evidence on a USB drive submitted by Mr. Rafizadeh. However, no such information appears in the statutory transcript and it was not introduced at this board's hearing. 2

16 At the outset, we must first address the propriety of the BOR's decision as to tax year The record indicates that appellant filed the underlying complaint in this matter for tax year However, the BOR issued a decision on February 22, 2012 valuing the property for both tax years 2010 and 2011, a year still open to challenge through the complaint process provided for by R.C Indeed, the parties indicated at this board's hearing that appellant did file a complaint challenging the property's value for tax year H.R. at This board has previously addressed the propriety of the Franklin County Board of Revision's attempt to exercise jurisdiction over a tax year still subject to challenge by complaint, harmonizing R.C (A), which authorizes certain persons to file complaints with county boards of revisions, and R.C (D), which addresses the effect of a pending complaint upon subsequent tax years, concluding that the latter provision does not preclude a valid complaint from establishing jurisdiction in a later tax year. We have previously directed the BOR to... ^. - _ ---- r I not purport to exercise jurisaiction over a year ior wnicn a compiainl may ue, aiiu ultimately is, filed, since such filing renders the earlier decision for the "open tax year" null and void. See, e.g., Bd. of Edn. of the South-Western City Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofrevision (Sept. 28, 2007), BTA No V-332, unreported, settled on appeal, 06/12/2009 Case Announcements, 122 Ohio St. 3d 1404, 2009-Ohio-2745; Achilles Enterprises Ltd. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofrevision (Feb 7, 2012), BTA No K-403, unreported. 3

17 We therefore find the BOR exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued a decision on February 22, 2012 purportedly determining the value of the subject property for tax year 2011, a year for which a valid complaint could be, and was in fact, filed. Accordingly, BTA No Q-772 is hereby remanded to the BOR with instructions to vacate its February 22, 2012 decision regarding the valuation of the subject property for tax year We begin our review of the remaining appeal by noting that a party who asserts a right to an increase or decrease in the value of real property has the burden to prove the right to the value asserted. Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision ( 1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 336; Crow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofrevision ( 1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 55; Mentor Exempted Village Bd. of Edn. v. Lake Cty. Bd of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 318. Consequently, 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; T---7 nj _l T. J-- -- i1 nnnn in -1 n, n^ ^yrcra^aecu Locu6 nu. U,/ Aun. v. oummat Cry. tsa. of nevasaon k1994j, nzs vnlo m3p Once an appellant has presented competent and probative evidence of value, other parties asserting a different value then have a corresponding burden of providing sufficient evidence to rebut the appellant's evidence. Springfield Local Bd. of Edn., supra; Mentor Exempted Village Bd. ofedn., supra. Appellant reiterated at this board's hearing that the subject property has no sewer and that no septic tank can be installed, making him unable to build on the property. H.R. at 7-9. In Throckmorton v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 75 4

18 Ohio St.3d 227, the Supreme Court addressed the burden attendant to advancing claims similar to those now made by appellant, emphasizing that a party must demonstrate more than the mere existence of adverse factors, but also the impact they have upon the property's value. See, also, Gupta v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 397. The court's decision in Throckmorton mirrored this board's own reasoning in Haydu v. Portage Cty. Bd. ofrevision (June 18, 1993), BTA No H-576, unreported: "A recitation of defects in a taxpayer's property, without more, is not especially helpful in determining a (lower) valuation. It is also necessary to establish the diminuation [sic] in value caused by the defects, or some evidence of the value of the property as so diminished. Appellant has established to our satisfaction that there are detrimental aspects to the subject property (which, however, are shared by his neighbors to a large degree, and to certain of the comparables) but he has utilized none of the approaches to value that would allow us to determine a value for the property as affected by the defects." Id. at 7. Based upon the foregoing, we find that appellant failed to present competent and probative evidence in support of his requested decrease in valuation. Accordingly, we find the value of the subject property as of January 1, 2010, shall be as previously determined by the auditor and retained by the board of revision, as follows: TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE Land $ 22,100 $ 7,740 Building $ -0 - $ Total $ 22,100 $ 7,740 5

19 It is the order of the Board of Tax Appeals that the Franklin County Auditor list and_ assess _the subject real propert_y_in conformity-with this decision-and order. = 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, journal this day, with respect to the captioned matter. Sa ^y F. Van eter, Board Secretary 6