IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. This is an appeal by Scranton-Averell, Inc. from the Cuyahoga County Board of

Transcription

1 V IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO SCRANTON-AVERELL, INC., Appellant, vs. CUYAHOGA COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER, et al., Appellees. CASE NO. CV JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL JUDGMENT ENTRY DETERMINING THE TAXABLE VALUE OF P.P.N FOR TAX YEAR 2012 UPON APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF REVISION S AUGUST DECISION John P. O Donnell, Ths s an appeal by Scranton-Averell, Inc. from the Cuyahoga County Board of Revson s August 13, 2013 denal of Scranton-Averell s complant aganst the county fscal offcer s valuaton of permanent parcel number for tax year Scranton-Averell fled the transcrpt and exhbts of proceedngs before the board and a mert bref n support of the appeal, the Board of Educaton of the Cleveland Muncpal School Dstrct fled a bref n opposton, and Scranton-Averell fled a reply. Ths decson follows. STATEMENT OF FACTS Scranton-Averell owns the property at 1515 Farfeld Avenue, permanent parcel number For tax year 2012, the fscal offcer assessed the total value of the property at 1

2 $297,900. The fscal offcer attrbuted $27,500 of that total to the value of the land, wth the remander - $270,400 - to the value of the buldng.1 Scranton-Averell fled a complant aganst the fscal offcer s valuaton, seekng to have the value reduced from $297,900 to $27,500 -.e., the value of the land only - because the buldng was razed before January 1, 2012 upon the property beng taken by The Oho Department of Transportaton through emnent doman. The board of educaton fled a countercomplant requestng that the fscal offcer s valuaton be retaned. A hearng was held before the board of revson. Thomas Stckney, the presdent of Scranton-Averell, was the only hearng wtness. He testfed that: [T]he buldng dd not exst there on that parcel January 1st, It was demolshed under a takng by the State of Oho Department of Transportaton... T]here was no buldng, so I don t know how [the fscal offce] can say they apprased the buldng on January 1st havng a value. The emnent doman case was adjudcated before The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Dvson, as Jolene M. Moltors, Drector, ODOT v. Scranton-Aver ell, Inc., et al., case number 2010 ADV The judgment entry of settlement n that case was not put nto evdence at the board of revson hearng but s part of the record here on appeal as the plantffs Exhbt 1 to ts mert bref. That entry shows that the state s nterest n the land through emnent doman was vested on August 22, Stckney testfed that the buldng was destroyed before that date. 1 It s not clear to me whether there was more than one buldng on the parcel number at ssue here. If there was more than one buldng (see, e.g., page 9 of Hearng Exhbt D, the fscal offcer s parcel value notes, showng buldng data for buldngs A, B, C and D, any reference n ths entry to buldng should be taken to mean buldngs. 2

3 f * The record also demonstrates that, at least as of the hearng date of July 18, 2013, a pcture from Google Maps showed that the buldng was gone. The only other record evdence that a buldng dd exst on the property as of the begnnng of 2012 s the fscal offcer s parcel lstng, Exhbt D to the transcrpt of proceedngs, showng an apprasal date on November 8, The parcel lstng shows the appraser ID as MBB-AUSDS. The board of revson affrmed the fscal offcer s buldng valuaton of $270,400 on the bass that Scranton-Averell faled to prove that the buldng was taken by emnent doman pror to LAW AND ANALYSIS Scranton-Averell s sole assgnment of error s that the board of revson erred by fndng the true value of the buldng on the parcel to be $270,400 despte the uncontradcted testmony before t. An appeal from the decson of a board of revson s made pursuant to secton of the Oho Revsed Code. Under that statute the court may rely on the record of the hearng and may hear and consder addtonal evdence. After consderng the evdence, the court shall determne the taxable value of the property... and shall certfy ts judgment to the fscal offcer. The court should consder all evdence and determne the taxable value through ts ndependent judgment. Black v. Board of Revson, 16 Oho St.3d 11, (1985. In effect, R.C contemplates a decson de novo. Id. It does not, however, provde for an orgnal acton or tral de novo. Id. Scranton-Averell s complant aganst valuaton was based on a fact that should not have been dffcult to prove: that the buldng the county wanted to exact a tax on no longer exsted at 3

4 I the begnnng of the tax perod. The evdence of that fact before the board of revson was Stckney s sworn testmony. Crcumstantal evdence n support of the testmony was seen n the form of the Google Map photo showng - albet perhaps only as of md that the buldng was gone. But at the same tme, no countervalng evdence was produced. Such evdence could have easly ncluded the testmony of the fscal offcer s own appraser who apparently clams to have apprased the property - and presumably seen a buldng on t - on November 8, 2012, more than a year after Stckney testfed that the buldng was razed. - I Snce the hearng, the evdence has been supplemented wth the probate court s entry affrmng the State of Oho s ttle to the property and any buldngs as of August 22, Havng consdered all of ths evdence, t s my ndependent judgment that the taxable value of the buldng on Permanent Parcel No at 1515 Farfeld Avenue n Cleveland as of January 1, 2012 was zero dollars. The reason the buldng had no value s t dd not exst, a concluson supported by Stckney s sworn testmony - whch I fnd to be credble, n part because I am not nclned to beleve he would le about such an easly verfable proposton - and the judgment of settlement n the probate case. CONCLUSION For the reasons gven here, the total taxable value as of January 1, 2012 of the property located at 1515 Farfeld Avenue n Cleveland and desgnated as Permanent Parcel No. Q s a total of $27,500, consstng of land valued at $27,500 and a buldng valuaton of zero. That value s hereby certfed to the Fscal Offce of Cuyahoga County through servce of a 4

5 certfed copy of ths judgment entry. IT IS SO ORDERED: March 10, 2017 Date SERVICE A copy of ths journal entry was sent by emal on March 10, 2017 to the followng: Andrew M. Fowerbaugh, Esq. amfowerbaueh@sbcglobal.net Attorney for the appellant Saundra Curts-Patrck, Esq. scurtspatrck@prosecutor.cuyahogacountv.us Attorney for appellee Cuyahoga County Fscal Offcer Davd H. Seed, Esq. dseed@bms-law.com 5