•r.^., Toe *up^.^erue CouL°t of Obio CANAL WINCHESTER MOI3 LLC, Appellant, . Case No. 2013-1432 vs. FAIRFIELD COi_iNTY BOARD OF REVISION AND FAIRFIELD COUNTY AUDITOR, et al., Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals BTA Case No. 2012-L-429 APpellees. MERIT BRIEF OF APPELLANT CANAL WINCHESTER MOB LLC Michael L. Close (0008586) Eugene L. Hollins (0040355) Dale D. Cook (0020707) ISAAC WII,Es BURKHOLDER &TEETOR, LLC 'Fwo Miranova Place, Suite 700 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 221-2121 Fax (614) 365-9516 email: nlclose(,r7i,isaacwiles.com ghollins( c-^isaacwiles.com dcook((_^ ,isaacwi les.com A ttornevs for Appellant Canal YI'inchester° MOB LLC Jason M. Dolin (0041820) Fairfield County Prosecutor's Office 239 West MainStreet, Suite 101 Lancaster; Ohio 43130 (740) 652-7560 Attof°nE3r for Appellees Diley Ridge Il%fedical Center, P'aiifteld C ounty BoaNd of Revision and Fai^field County Artditor Richard M. DeWine (0009181) Attorney General Ohio Attorney General's Office 30 E. Broad Street Col«.mbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 728-4948 Att-oryzey fof• Appellees Joseph Testa cind Board of Tax Appeals ;......... :<l• r;. .' . , ` ^;} ,'s^^,`i's. %3•'.'<i^ yi"'s;'%;if 243 913 2.1 : 0142100004
Transcript
•r.^.,
Toe *up^.^erue CouL°t of Obio
CANAL WINCHESTER MOI3 LLC,
Appellant, . Case No. 2013-1432
vs.
FAIRFIELD COi_iNTY BOARD OFREVISION AND FAIRFIELD COUNTYAUDITOR, et al.,
Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals
BTA Case No. 2012-L-429
APpellees.
MERIT BRIEF OF APPELLANT CANAL WINCHESTER MOB LLC
Michael L. Close (0008586)Eugene L. Hollins (0040355)Dale D. Cook (0020707)
ISAAC WII,Es BURKHOLDER &TEETOR, LLC'Fwo Miranova Place, Suite 700Columbus, Ohio 43215(614) 221-2121Fax (614) 365-9516email: nlclose(,r7i,isaacwiles.com
A ttornevs for AppellantCanal YI'inchester° MOB LLC
Jason M. Dolin (0041820)Fairfield County Prosecutor's Office239 West MainStreet, Suite 101Lancaster; Ohio 43130(740) 652-7560Attof°nE3r for AppelleesDiley Ridge Il%fedical Center,P'aiifteld C ounty BoaNd of Revisionand Fai^field County Artditor
Richard M. DeWine (0009181)Attorney GeneralOhio Attorney General's Office30 E. Broad StreetCol«.mbus, Ohio 43215(614) 728-4948Att-oryzey fof• AppelleesJoseph Testa cind Board of Tax Appeals
;.........
:<l• r;. .' . , `
^;} ,'s^^,`i's. %3•'.'<i^ yi"'s;'%;if
243 913 2.1 : 0142100004
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
'TAI3LE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
II. STr1TI?,MENT OF THE FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS .................................................. 1
III. LAW AND ARGUMENT .......................... ........... 4
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1: The Board of Tax Appeals erred indismissing the underlying complaint since the property owner Diley RidgeMedical Center was properly identified in the complaint thereby invoking the
j urisdiction of the Board of Revision ...................................... ......... ................... ............ 4
A. SUMMARY.. .. .. . . . ................................................... .................................................... 4
B. LAW AND ARGUNIE^,TT ........................,...................................................... ............. 4
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2: The Board of Tax Appeals erred as thecomplainant Canal Winchester MOB LLC, which was reqtiired to pay the taxesand owned improvements on parcel tlumber 042-03 884-90 had standing to file its
A. SUMMARY ........................ ....... ................................................................................. 7
B. LAW AND ARGIIMENT .............................................................................................. 7
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3: The Board of Tax Appeals erred by raisingthe standing issue sua sponte thus depriving Canal Winchester MOI3 LLC of theright to be heard and present evidence on that issue ..... ......... ......................................... 10
A. StJMMARY ................................................................................. .... .............. .... ....... 10
B. LAW AND AKGUME:NT ... .. .. .. . .... . .. . .................... ...... ............................... 10
IV. CONCLUSION .............. ........................................... ........................................................ 12
CI>RTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............> ........................>.............................................................. 13
APPI;ND[XNotice of Appeal of Canal Winchester iV1O13 ................................................................. A-1Decision of Board of Tax Appeals dated August 8, 2013 .............................................. A-9Minutes of BOR January 18, 2012 ........................ . .. ...... A-13Decision of Fairfield County Board of Revision .................... ..................................... A-14Notice of Appeal to Board of Tax Appeal .... .................... ... ................ ................ A-15Compla.int .....:............. .................................................................................................. A-] 7Ohio Revised Code §5715.19 ....................................................................................... A-18Ohio Revised Code §5715.I3 ........................................................................ ........... A-23
2439132.1 : 01421000041
TABLE OF AUTI-IOIZI:TIES
Pa ge
CASES
Akron Centre Plaza, L.L. C. v. Summit Cty. Bd.of Revision, 128 Ohio St.3d 145,21010-Ohio-5035 (2010) ................ ......... ......... ................................................................ 4
Board of Educationof the City of Dublin Schools v. Franklin County Board ofRevision, Case No, 2012-1932, 2013-Ohio-4543 (2013) ................. . .................... . ............ 4
Board of Fducation of the Delaware City Schools v. Delavvare Board of Revision,BTA Case No. 97-L-871 ...................................................................................................... 5
Clei>eland Electric Illunainating Cornpany v. Lake County Board of Revision, 80Ohio St.3c: 591 (1998). .. ................ ... ......... .......................... ...... .... 5
Cleveland ^Wunicipal School District v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision,BTA No. 2003-M-1092, 2004 WL 1369407 (2004) ............................,.......................,...... 9
Davis v. Cityof Willoughby, 173 Ohio St. 338, 182 N.E.2d 552 (1962)...... ...... ......................,.... 6
Global Knowledge Training, L.L.C. v. Levin, 127 Ohio St.3d 34, 36 (2010) ................................ 4
In State exrel Athens Department of.Iob aizd .F'amily Services v. tLlartin, 4"' Dist.No. 2008 WL 1758896, 2008-Ohio-1849........... ......... ............................. ..................., 11
LTV Steel v. Industrial Commission of Ohzo, 140 Ohio App.3d 680, 748 N.E. 2d1176 (10" Dist. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 10
.11-'ational Arnusenaents Inc. v. Union Twp,, Inc. v. tlnion Twp. Board of ZoningAppeals, 12`" Dist. No. CA2002-12-7, 2003-Ohio-5434, 2003 VVL,'22326598 .................................................. ......... ................... . .................... . ...................... 5
Ohio Association of Public School Eraaployees, AFL-CIC), et al. v. Lakewood CitySchool District Board of Education, 68 Z7hioSt.3d. 175, 624 N.E.2d 1043(1994) ............................................................... .................................. ....... ........ 10
Park Investnzcnts v. Board of Revision of C2iyczhoga County, 115 Ohio App. 523,179 N.E.2d 784 (g" Dist. 1962)......... ............................._................................................... 9
Toledo Public Schools Board of Education v. Lucas County Bd of Revision; 124Ohio St.3d 490, 2010-Ohio-253 ............... ................... .:...........................:....................... 7
7'op Spin LLC v. Lucas County Bd. of Revision, BTA Case No. 2011-Q-3879(March 28, 2013) ................................................ ............. ............................. ......... 10
Trebmal Construction, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Bd, of Revision, 29 Ohio App.3d312, 505 N.E.2d 290 (8`h Dist: 1986) .................................................................................. 5
Volibar• Realty Conapany and C'leveland Bd of Education v. Cuycrhoga CountyBoard of Revision, BTA Nos. 2003-T-633, 648, 649, 2004 WL 1656293 ... ......... . ............ 8
Wells Fargo Bank v. .l3rctndle, 2"d Dist No. 2012CA0002, 2012-Ohio-3492, 2012WL 3140256 ........................................................................................................................ S
Black's Law Dictionary, 5tt' Edition (1979) .................... .................. .........,...............,.....,....,...... 1
2439132.1 : 0142100004
L INTRODLJCTION
While tax appeals are often complex and technical, this case turns on two sirnple issues.
First, this case concerns the right of a party that has indisputably been injured by an improper
property valuation to appeal that valuation. More importantly this appeal raises the right to be
heard and to present evidence on the issue that resulted in a dismissal of its case without notice
or the opportunity to present evidence or argument.
II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Given the failure by anyone to raise the standing issue with the Board of Revision (130R)
or the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), the factual record on this issue is very limited as there was
no reason to develop a detailed factual record on an issue that was never raised by anyone.
This appeal concerns a tax lien date January 1, 2010. I'he property is located on
Diley Road in the State of Ohio, Fairfield CQUnty, City of Canal Winchester bearing parcel
number 042-03884-90. (See Complaint.) Itsprincipaluse is a medical office building,
Canal Winchester MOB LLC (Canal Winchester) is the party that pays the taxes for the subject
parcel. Canal Winchester has a long term ground lease pursuant to which it has paid for
improvements on the property. A ground lease is a lease in which the lessee typically pays for
improvements such as the buildings on the property and the ground leasee usually has possession
of those buildings. It is customary under ground leases for the ground leasee to pay for all taxes
and insurance, During the term of the lease, Canal Winchester MOB owned the improvements.
See, 13lack ^s La}n) Dictionary, 5th Edition (1979) at p. 633. In a ground lease situation., the leasee
is much more than a mere occupant of a building owned by the lessor,
This action began with the timely filing of' a complaint vvith the Fairfield County BOR by
Diley Ridge Medical Center and Canal Winchester MOB LLC against the valuation of the
subjectproperty for tax year 2010, in which the Auditor valued the property at $7,921,590,00, a
2439132.1 : 0142100004
taxable value of $2,772,560.00. A copy of the complaint, which is a form document, is included
in the appendix. (Appx. 17.) Appellant Canal Winchester MOB LLC, as the conlplainant,
requested the decrease in the value of the property because as of January 1, 2010, the
improvements on the property were under construction and not complete. (See also F,xhibit2 to
BOR Tr. 116-117.) Interestingly, Exhibit 2 lists Canal Winchester MOB LLC as the owner. At
the BOR hearing, evidence was presented that the cost of construction as of January 1, 2010 was
$3,460,000.00, a taxable value of $1,211,000.00. (BOR Tr. 117-118.)
Paul Ghidotti and Hennan Ziegler testified at the hearing. (Transcript at p. 112.) Canal
Winchester submitted the 2009 and 2010 contractor draw applications for the subject property as
Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively estabhshing the amount of the cost of construction. Both of these
documents were signed by a representative of the owner of Canal Winchester MOB LLC and
certified by the architect. (BOR Tr. 115.) At the hearing there was also testimony that pursuant
to the lease Cana1 Winchester MOB paid the real estate taxes. (BOR Tr. 11.) Mr. Ziegler also
testified that Canal Winchester MOB was the owner when referencing F;xhibit 2, which is the
application for Certificate of Payment which also lists Canal Winchester MOB as the owner.
(BOR. 'I'r. 117) Since the issue of standing had not been raised, no furtller evidence or
testimony as to the extensive nature of the lease or Canal Winchester MOB's interest in the
property was introduced at the hearing.
Mr. Ziegler made it very clear in his testimony that the building o1i the property was still
undef° construction as of the tax lien date in question, January 1, 2010, and tivus not even
complete one year lecter. (BOR Tr. 117-19.) At the hearing, the Fairfield County Board of
Education failed to appear and failed to present any evidence. (BOR Tr. 112-117.)
22.43 913 2..1 : 0142100004
Following the hearing, the BOR retained the Fairfield County Auditor's value of
$7,921,590.00 for the property even though the building was not complete. (See 011118/2012
BOR Minutes and Decision of BOR, Appx. 14.) In the BOR decision, the members relied solely
on. affirmation by "Deputy Auditor Sodders confirm[ing] the due diligence on the Auditor's
office in confirming the 100 percent completion in valuing this property as of the 01!01/2010 tax
lien date" without presenting any evidence as to ovhat constitttted the Auditor's office `due
diligence.' (BOR Minutes and Decision, Appx. 13, 14.) A timely notice of appeal was filed
with the BTA on behalf of Canal Winchester MOB and Diley Ridge Center (property owner).
(Appx. 15.) A brief was filed with the BTA indicating that counsel represented both Diley Ridge
Medical Center and Canal Winchester MOB.
On August 8, 2013, the BTA sua sponte without giving any notice or opportunity to be
heard ordered that the case be remanded to the BOR and dismissed for lack of standing.
(Appx. 9.) A. timely notice of appeal was filed with this Court on September 6, 2013, and was
served on all appellees including the Tax Commissioner and the BTA via certified mail.
(Appx. 1.)
2439132.1 ; 01421 000043
[II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1: The Board of Tax Appeals erred in dismissing theunderlying complaint since the property owner Diley Ridge Medical Center was properlyidentified in the complaint thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the Board of R.evision.
A. SUMMARY
'I,he complaint filed with the property owner listed on the complaint substantially
complied with Ohio Revised Code §5715.19. At the hearittg both the property owner and Canal
Winchester were represented by the same coun:sel. Given that this complaint met the
requirements of Ohio Revised Code §5719 and neither standing nor jurisdiction were questioned
by any of the parties or the BOR, the complaint properly invoked the jurisdiction of the BOR,
Furtherinore, any objections to the propriety of the complaint were waived.
B. LAw AND ARGi?MEN'r
This Court reviews a decision of the BTA as to whether it is unreasonable or unlawful.
Board of Fdtccrtionof the City of Dublin Schools v. Franklin CorrnEy Board of Revision, Case
No. 2012-1932, 2013-Ohio-4543 (2013) at'^I3. The questions of standing and/or jurisdictiozt are
questions of law subject to L?e Alovo review by this Court. Akron Centre Plaza, L.L. C. v: Summit
Cty. Bd: of'Revision, 128 Ohio St.3d 145, 2010-Ohio-5035 (2010). '£'he decision of the BTA on
such legal questions is accorded no deferenee. Dublin, 2013-Ohio-4543 at 1113. This Court has
consistently held that it will "not hesitate to reverse a BTA decision that is based on an incorrect
Amusements Inc. v. UnionTivp.,Inc. v. Union Tvp. Boar-d of Zoning Appeals, 12t" Dist. No.
CA2002-12-7, 2003-Ohio-5434, 2003 WL 22326598 at ^14. While not involving tax appeals,
the rationale of this case is applicable since standing goes to a person's capacity to bring a claim
or make a complaint. The reason for the allowance of waiver is that a party should be allowed to
present evidence of its capacity and that cannot be done in the absence of some kind of notice.
Where ambiguity exists in a taxing statute or forms, this Court has consistently held that
"any doubt [in the construction of taxing statutes] must be resolved in favor of the citizen upon
whom or the property upon which the burden is sought to be imposed." Davis v. City of
52439132.1 : 01421 00004
Willoughby, 173 Ohio St. 338, 182 N.E:.2d 552 (1962), paragraph one of the syllabus; Roxanne
Laboratoi°ies, Inc. v. Traey, 75 Ohio St.3d 125, 126, 1996-Ohio-257; 661 N.E.2d 1011 (1996).
Given the construction in favor of taxpayers, the complaint is also sufficient to invoke
jurisdiction as it can be construed that Canal Winchester MOB was representing the owner or its
interests when the complaint was filed. Aiiy ambiguity on this issue should be resolved in favor
of the taxpayer. Neither the BOR nor the other pai-ties objected to the sufficiency of the
complaint. I:f this Court finds that evidence is necessary to clear up this ambiguity, this is yet
ailother reason to hear evidence on the standing issue.
243 913 2.1 014 21 000046
ASSIGNMENT OF EI2ROII;. NO. 2: The Board of Tax Appeals erred as thecomplainant Canal Winchester MOB LLC, which was required to pay the taxes andowned improvements on parcel number 042-03884-90 had standing to file its complaint.
A. StIM:vrARv
Canal Winchester MOB was far more than an ordinary tenant, it was a ground lessee that
paid for and had possession and was the owner of improvements to the property pursuant to a
long term ground lease. Given these improvements, its ownership, possession and its obligation
to pay the real estate taxes, Canal Winchester MO13 suffered daznage and has standing to contest
the over valuation of the Diley Ridge property.
B. LAW AND ARGUMENT
The key statute as to standing to contest a property valuation is Ohio Revised Code
§5715.19 which states in pertinent part:
Any per•son owning taxable real property in the county or in a taxing district withterritory in the county; such a person's spouse; an. individual who is retained bysuch a person and who holds a designation from a professional assessmentorganization, such as the institute for professionals in taxation, the nationalcouncil of property taxation, or the international association of assessing officers;a public accouritant who holds a permit under section 4701.10 of the RevisedCode, a general or residential real estate appraiser licensed or certified underChapter 4763. of the Revised Code, or a real estate broker licensed under Chapter4735, of the Revised Code, who is retained by such a person; if the person is afirm, company, association, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation,an officer, a salaried employee, a partner, or a member of that person; ... countymay file such a complaint regarding any such determination affecting any realproperty in the county, ...
This provision must be read in concert with Ohio Revised Code §5715.13 which prohibits
the BOR from reducing a valuation unless a party affected files a written application with the
BtJR, jVfidland I ood Services v. Cuyahoga County, BTA No. 2001-G-158, 2002 WL 923361
(2002). The language of §5715.19 is significant in that it broadens the earlier statute. See,
Toledo Public Schools Boaf°d ofEducation v. Lucas (;`oxanty Bd. of'Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 490,
201()-C?hio-253 at ^,, 15.
72439132.1 : 014 21 00004
While the cases cited by the BTA do hold that a simple equitable interest (i.e. the garden
variety lease) is insufficient, they do not address the issue of standing when there is evidence in
record that the lessee paid for and had possession of improvements on the real property. (BOR
Tr. 114-117.) Since Canal Winchester paid for the building on the property, it has more than an
equitable interest in those buildings which are now attached to the property and in fact greatly
enhance its value. There is testimony in the record that Canal Winehester obtained a bank loan
for the improvements, and such loans usually require ownership. Clearly, Canal Winchester is a
party affected by the over valuation of the property, especially since it pays the taxes.
As the owner of the improvements pursuant to the terms of the lease, which are broken
out separately on the tax bill, Canal Winchester MOB is an owner for purposes of Ohio Revised
Code §5715.19. (BOR Tr. 115.) The cases cited by the BTA do not deal with ground leases or
similar arrangements. Canal Winchester's interest as ground leases extend well beyond a
tenant's right to occupy thepremises. Canal Winchester IVIOB owns the improvements that
contribute to the value of the property.
In fact; the BTA in Volibar Realty Company and Cleveland Bd. of Ediccation v.
Cuyahoga County Boaf°d of Revision, BTA Nos. 2003-T-633, 648, 649, 2004 WL 1656293, held
that the owner of improvements on the real property had standing as an owner to file a valuation
complaint. Volibaa° at p. 3. A similar result was reached in Sandusky Bay Bridge v. Fall, 41
Ohio App. 355, 181 N.E. 112 (1931). Clearly, the ownership of the improvements confers
standing as the owner is affected by the valuation of this separately valued item. Volzbor supra.
Also, given the lack of any objections regarding standing, Canal Winchester MOB did
not put on any evidence that it owned taxable real property in FairfieldCounty. There was no
82439132.1 : 01421 00004
reason to put on any such evidence since stazzdittg was not contested. Interestingly, there is no
place on the form complaint to put such information.
Ohio couits have held that certain lor7g term leases can confer standing. See, Park
Investments v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 115 Ohio App. 523, 179 N.E.2d7$4 ($"
Dist. 1997); Cleveland 1Vunicipal School District v. Cuyahoga County.f3oayd of Revision, BTA
No. 2003-M-1492, 2004 VJI, 1369407 (2004). These cases are a recognition that each long terni
lease can confer an interest equivalent to ownership. In other contexts Ohio courts have
extended the concept of oNvnership beyond the holding of legal title to the property. See, PI'ood
v. Donohue, 136 Ohio App.3d 336, 736 N.I'>.2d 556 (1999).
The ground lease conferred on Canal Winchester MOB several of the indices of
ownership indicating the r.iglit to construct, pay for and finance improvements. Also, Canal
Winchester MOB supervised the construction of and owned a building that is given a separate
value in a tax valuation, and in fact the valuation of the building is what is at issue in this case. It
also had possession of the building and paid all taxes and insurance. Since it owned a separately
valued item, it has standing to contest its valuation.
9243913 2.1 : 0142100004
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3: The Board of Tax Appeals erred by raising thestanding issue >sucr sponte thus depriving Canal Winchester MOB LLC of the right to beheard and present evidence on that issue.
A. SuMNTARV
Notice and opportunity to be heard are the essential elements of procedural due process.
Canal Winchester MOB received neither when the BTA sua sponte dismissed its complaint for
lack of standing. Canal Winchester MOB was severely prejudiced by this flawed procedure as it
lost any opportunity to present evidence and argument on a dispositive issue.
B. LAW AND ARGUItIENT
Since Canal Winchester MOB paid the property taxes on the property and had
possession and ownership of improvements paid for by it, it had a property interest in the
valuation of the Diley Road property. With such an interest, it had a right to rLzdimentary
procedural due process before such a property interest was taken from it. See, Ohio Association
o.f' Public School Enlployees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Lakewood City School District Board of
Ea'ucation, 68 Ohio St.3d. 175, 624 N.E.2d 1043 (1994) at p. 177; LTV Steel v: Industriul
The cases cited by the BTA for the most part involved some kind of notice that there was
an issue with standing. This notice was through a nlotion to dismiss or a letter. See, Top Spijz
LLC v. Latcus County Bd. of' Revision, BT'A Case No. 20l l-Q-3879 (March 28, 2013), Even
when raised by this court, an opportunity for briefing and argument wasgiven. See, Performing
Arts v. Wilkins, 104 Ohio St.3d 284, 819 N.E.2d 649 (2004) at ¶6. No such notice was given in
this case.
The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard were especially prejudicial in light of the
potential if notified of an objection to standing for Canal Winchester MOB to take several
actions. First, it could have presented evidence that it owned other property in Fairfield County.
102439132.1 : 0142100004
(Remember that there is no place on the form for this information.) Next, much more evidence
would have been presented on the nature of the lease and the interest that it conferred on Canal
Winchester MOB. Finally, Canal Winchester could have presented additional evidence as to its
representative capacity when filing the original complaint with the property owner. There was
simply no reason to take these extra steps in liglit of the lack of aj1y objections on standing.
The interest conferred by the ground lease if there is any ambiguity, needs to be explored
at an evidentiary hearing. The BTA without taking any evidence and based on a simple space in
a forin complaint completely misconstrued the scope of the ground lease. Such action was
unreasonable in the absence of any evidence. The BTA simply assumed that the lease at issue
was like any other standard lease and its summary disposition prevented Canal Winchester MOB
frorn correcting this incorrect conclusion.
If this Court allows the BTA decision to stand, it will encourage parties to lie in wait and
not raise the stranding issueuntil after a party can do nothing aboiat it. This result goes against
the tenor of the Civil Rules which mandate disclosure and seek to avoid trial by ambush.
It may be argued that standing is a threshold issue, but personal jurisdiction is a threshold
issue, and courts have routinely held that it can be waived. See, In State ex rel Athens
Department of Job and Fcrn2il3, Services v. Mcrrtin, 4"' Dist. No. 2008 WL 1758 $96, 200$-Ohio-
1849. When a complaint is filed that substantially complies with Ohio Revised Code§5715.19
and there are no objections based on standing or other deficiencies to the complaint, there is no
reason to present additional evidence as counsel rightly assuined the threshold had been met.
112439132.1:0142100004
IV. CONCLUSION
The decision of the 13TA should be reversed and the complaint heard on its merits or in
alternative the case should be remanded to the BTA with instructions that the BOR take
additional evidence on the slaztdizig isstie.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael L. Close (0008586)Eugene L. Hollins (0040355)Dale D. Cook (0020707)ISAAC Vt'[t,t;s I3[1RKHot;Dr-,K & TEETOR, LLCTwo Miranova Place, Suite 700Columbus, Ohio 43215(614) 22- 1-2121Fax (614) 365-9516email: [email protected]
ghollins@isaacwiles,coindcook` isaacwiles.com
A ttvYneys for AppellantCunalWinchester 11/10B LLC
12243913 2.1 : 0142100004
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served by regular U.S. mail,
postage prepaid, this ^^clay of November, 2013, upon the following:
Jason M. Dolin (0041820)1?airfield County Prosecutor's Office239 West Main Street, Suite 101Lancaster, Ohio 43130(740) 652-7560Attorney_foN AppelleesDilej) Ridge Il%ledical Center,Fairfield County I3oat°cl of Revisionand Fairfield Cotinly Auditor
Richard M. DeWine (0009181)Attorney GeneralOhio Attorney General's Office30 E. Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 728-4948Attorney for AI)I)elleesJoseph Testa and Board of Tax AI)peals
Diley Ridge Medical Center6150 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43213-1574 ,P / r^t,/% •, ,r
_;,a ^= ^.-°„' Q^3"^( ^s `^"` L'^
Dale D. Cook
132439132.1:01421 00004
TAX API'E,A,I, TO SU.PRE:'^E COURT OF OHIC3
Caiial Winchester MOB LLC (Cor:pWnan^),
Appellant,
VS.
Fairfi eld. County Board of Revisionand Fairfield County At€ditor, ^^ al,,
Pur.saiant to Suprdin7e Court €Ue oi`Prac;tiee I4(B)(2) and Q1hio Revised Code §5717,04,
a copy of t1rus Noticc^; is E;eiiag served via certified rnaii, postage prepaid, this day of
September, 20 13, u^.̂ wx t^c fol:lowir. ;
.I'asc^n M, Dolin (0041820)Fairfield County Prasec!:tclr's Office239 W`,^St Ma}n Sta"ee;'t, Suji.e €01Lancaster, Ohio 43130(740) 652-7560Aftorne^iz vr ,^^7'Peilees
Diley Ridge Medical Center6i.50 East Broad ^iTee?Ceiumbixs, Ohio 43213-1574A^P^Wee
Fairfield C'.ouaity Board of Revision2 10 East ^la7ii Street, SxEi'Le 201Laticaster; Ohio 4)1 ^[3.4^,^)ellec
Paf.r6eidl County Auditor? 10 East Maasz Street, Suite 20ILancaster, C)dhio 43 130'417pei'lee
,Ias^ph 1'estaTeux Ci3Tt"lFl"123ss3+;FIteF
Ohio Departnxent of Taxationi'.4,). Box 530Go€timbus, Ohio 4312-:16-0530.-2P'Pellee
Board ot -Fax AppealsPhodes Fo-vro<er3OEafitBroac( Street, 24th FloorColw.-nbus Ohio 43215Appc.^lle^
Da4e D. ^o^jk
2s45$35.1 : 01422 t1^^^4
A-4
.^ ^
OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
Diley R.idge Medical Center (gurner) and }C^^ 'Winchester WtOB LLC (Cc^^p'Aa;€nant):)
}Appekla..̂ 'at..^, ^
^'4'S. ,̂
^Fairfield County B4ard of R.^^rision and ^Fairfield County Auditor, )
jAppellees.
APPEARANCBS:
CASE INO, 2012-1,4^'?9.
(REA.€., PROPE-R TY TAX)
DE-CIS1O^,^ .A:.'^ ORDER
For tFtp Appel4aaits - ls$ac, WiPe.,, Btsrkhotder & Teetar, LLCi.^eLry'E', BcsyleTwo Mira^^om PIaGe, Suite 700Co€urtbus, Ohio 43,215
{ tsr the csunt3t - tzregg fala:.^x.A ppt,liees FafrfieEd Cc^uniy. Prosecuting Atto-nc3J
Jason M, DolanAss istanG Pr4secu#ffig Attorney239 Wt!st Mazn Street, SLtate 101Lancastt-r, C?lhio 43130
Entered ^^^ ^ ^ 2013
W Williamson, NI-r. ^ohm. rdt, and Nir, Harbargo.r corzeur.
Appellants appoal a decision issued by t1ac Fairfield Gourity Board of
Revision ("BOR") whiah detormined the r!alu.- assigned to the. subject property, i.e,,
laaz°c:e1 number ^42-03884-90, for tax year 2010, All partics waived their rig1f to appear
at a hearing before this board and the appellaiif. P1ecte€i to submit a merit ^-le€'.
Therefore, this ma^.-ter is considered :Ton the notice of appeal, the statutory trarzscript
("S.T.") certified by the BO^.^., and the legal a.rg=enrs csftae appellaut.
U^on a mv^ ^-tv of the record, it appears that the instant appeal is from a
decisi^^rt that the SOR dicl not havo jurisdiction to rnake. Spec€ficatly, this bcerd must
A-5
determine whether the underlying ccrmplai-Ait properly invoked the jurisdiction of the
county bowd of'revisiozt, and in tum, an appeal to this board. The record xe'veais th.et the
u^iflerlying decrease complaint ide^tifled the owner of the property as Diley Ridge
lViecii ;aI Center and the cogrplainant if Qtlier than owner as Canal Winchestcr N40,13 LLC,
S,T., Ex. i. Ori line five, whieh indicates the complai.ziant's relationship to the propersy
i#' not owner, the complainant identified itseii' as "Ground Lessee," Id. The complaint
was txen signed by "Bruce H. Burkhol.der, Attorney." Id. At the hearing before the
BOR, Mr. Herman Ziegtex testified that he was the treasurer of Canal Winchester .^IOB
LLC, the party that pays the taxes for the sub^iect parcel. S.`i., Ex. 4 at 113, i"tteler,
both `he notice of appeal a.nd merit brief ciear1y tlisfin;uzsh the av^,=r of the ^^peq,
Diiep Ridg)d Nledical Cei3ter, aozn: the party responsible for the taxes, Caiiai Wir^cb^.steY
MOB LLC. Brief at 1.Thus= the record before this board indicates that the unsierlying
complah-it was filed by the leme of the propezty; rather than tio titled crwrier.'°
R,C. 3.7I5,13 outlines -tviZo has standing to file a decrease complaint and
provides that "s[flhe county board ofxevision shal1 not decrease any vaiaatAoll Lwless a
party a6cotcd t.hercby or who is authorized to file a c,omx iakrzt under section r15. 19 of
the Revised Code makes and files with the board a written application therefor, verified
by oath, showing the facts upon which it is claimed such decrease sh-ould: be madc,"
Furthermore, with regard to who .rnay file a complBint, R.C. 5715.19 provides that
«[a]ny person owning taxable real propeny in the county or in a taxing dlstri; twith
territory in the county" may file a co.mplaint or "4a persox! owning taxable real proper-ty in
} tn its brief, the apPetlaiits sate fliatttie tusddriying complaint was filW both by Us1ey R:sd;e rsledica; CcnterandCaaaai WinchesW MOB LLC. Brie#` at i. However, the record does sxot support this eanten€ion.
2
^:.
A-6
anotil:er county may file so.dh a cozxapiaint onIY with regard i-o. any such determination
affectizxg, real pxop^.^rty in the couaty that is located in the sarne taxing district as that
person°s res-l property is lcrcated.°' Specific to the instanz case, a,. Ci^-, of Dayton v,
tEis board addressed tie jursdaa<onai validity of a complaint filed by a lessee of
property, holding as fo1iows:
"The tigats of a IesseW withizz the reeI vrop^^^ valimtionreal.m are well estaUshed. INUl^ a lessee may be theovvrter of an eqctilablo interest Fn real property, a lessee isnot '^^e holder cvf ieggal titIe thez--to, See Far^'^rrnirzg ArkSchool of .Is^etrca. Toledo, Ax, v, Wigins (2004), I04 Ohio80d 284, 2004-Ohio-6389. This is an importantdistinction because the ho.tder of legal title of real prbpeztyhas standing to zle a ow.plaint under k.C. 5715.19,whereas tfie owner of an equitable interest in real proportydoes not. See rictoria Plaza Ltd, Liav. Co. v. CuyahragaCty. Ad. o,f`Revision (1999), 86 Ohio 80d I813 183 (`Ttius,a persok-i owning property has legal title to it; a personhavirt- the beneficial interest in propmty iias possession ofall characteris#.ics of mvnershzp ^thea than legal title. SinceR.C. 5715.19 does not contain langu^g^e aIlowing, somseanwo^hcr tfian the person holdiug legg] title^ to .^le^ a eompiaint,we ooriclude that tho wAmer of au equitable interest z-a- roalpr€spcrtyt dozz not have standing to .^^le acompxaint.°.);Society Arationcrd Bank v. Wood Cty, Bd. of Revision (1998),81 Ohio St.3d 401 (R.C. 5715.19 govcms who = file acomplaint); Public Square 2"`ower One v. Cuyahoga Ct,y.Bd qi Reaisi.on (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 49, 516 N.E.2d1290, syllabus (`As used in F.,C. 5715.19, the term `owner'refers to the owner on the date when a valua;ioa ^om. plaintwas. fi1ed.'). See, also, Performing Arls; supra (a lesseeIacks standing to file an application seeking to exempt reatprop^^y and the fact that the owner joins in the appEca.tiozzafter the filing deadl.tme has passed doe3 not curc thejurisdictional defect); Arorth Olrrasred Bd.of Edn, i^Cu}.pctlacagca Cty. J3d of ,^evision (1998), 122 0-hio App.3d654, 70-L N.F.2d 518 (lessee and non-owner of propertylacked standing to file a decr=e complaint with the boar€i
.A-7
^„ ..
a.. . I y
a + r
of revision); Berea G`ifv School Dist. Bd: of Edxt v,Cuyahoga C. .Bd of .Revtsfon ^Uune 25, 2007), BTA No.2006-Z-I 190 :, v.nrRportedy Color Alatrix v. Cuyahog-a G`ty.^^ of Revision (Tune 29, 2007), BTA No_ 2006-Z-1347,unreparteti."s MI. at 9-I0o
See, also, Top Spin LLC v, Lucas Gt u, Bd: qf.iZevTsion (Viar, 28, 201.3)s BTA No. 201 1-
No. 20 1 0kY, ?& I2, u.r..repnrted; Bet•ca City School .ir`tisf Ed. of Edr€; v: Cuyahoga Cty. Bca'.
of Revi,siou (Aug, 28, 2012)s BTA Nos. 201 I-A-3124, 3425, uhrepcsrted; Leister Game
& iVoveer^y Cia. LLC v. Lucas Qy. Rd of Revision (June 9, 2010), BTA No< 20€}9-M--
^^03_, unreported.
The case law is clear that as a lessee, Canal Wimbester MOB LLC did no^t
have standing to Mw the tmderlyiizg complaint, Ttiereforey it is the deeisian of the Board
of `J'ax ^kppeals that the in::iial corrzplaint .aIed with the D OR was imukTicient toin-voke
that tribunal's jtaxsdietiam AccoreingIy, this ma.tter is hereby remaazded to tl-te BOR
with 'rnsiz-uctions to d:smiss tbe <znderi; ing complaint which origi€iated thas actaon.
I hersby certify the foregoing to be a true aa.dwmplet copy of the action tAen by te Boardof Tax AppeaIs of the State of Ohio andentered upon its journal this dpy, -Mith respectto the captxonvd. nxattLr.
A...J. Grueber, ^oa d S-e;,rctary
4
A-8
OMO BOARD OF '^^ APPEALS
Diley Ridge Medical Center (Owner) and ^Canal Wincheexr MOB LLC (Complainant)f)
^Appellants, ^
^
Fairfield County Board ofRevis.' iom and jFairfield County Auditor, 1
^^Appellees.
AFPEAIt^?CESt
CASE NO, 201 ^^1-429
WAL PROPERTY TAX)
DECISION AND ORDER
FcaT the Appellants - 7saao, Wiles, Burkhcsle#er & Teetor, LLCKeaxyT. BcsyleTwo Miranova Place, Suite 700Columbus, Ohio 43215
For the County - Gregg Marx.Appetkees Fairfield Couaty Prosecuting Attor€a:+,y
Jascn M. DolinAssistant Prosecutiig Attorszey239 WestMairr Sh-e-et, Suite Ia ILancaster, Q'Aaio 43130
Ezztered AUG 0 $ 2013
Mr. Williamson, Mr. lohrendt, and IN& Harbarger conctar.
Appellants appeal a decision issued by the Fairfield County Board of
Revision (CC^ORg') which determ:ined the value assigned to the subject property, i.e,,
parcel number ^42-03884-90g for tax year 2010, All parties waived their right to appear
at a hearing before this board and the appellant elected to submit a merit brief
Therefore, this rnatfier is eonsides'ed upon the notice of appeal, the statutory trmscript
("5.T,") certffed by the BOR, and the legal ar;utricnts of the appeliant.
Upon a review of the record, it appears that the instant appeal is from a
dccisfon that the 13CkR did not have jtxtisdiciion to make. Specifically, this board rra.ust
.4-9^
detemzi.ne whether the underlying complaint properly invoked the ;urisdiction of the
county baazd of re-toision, and in tum, an appeal to this bmd. 'rhe record reveals $at the
underlying decrease conipl:a:int identified the o-vvner of the property as Diley Ridge
Nledic,al Center and the complainant if other thm cs-wner as Canal Winchester MOB LLC.
S.T., Ex. 7. On line five, which indicates the c€srrTlainas.^t's relationship to the property
if not mi,,ner, the compWnant identified itself as "Ground Lessee." Id. '^e complaint
was then signed by "Bruce H. Burkholder, Attomey." Id. At the hearing before the
BOP, Ndr, Hezman Ziegler testified that he was the treasurer of Canal Winchester MOB
LLC, the party that pays the taxes for the subject paa•ceL S.T., Ex. 4 at 113. Fur#her,
both the notice of appeal and morit brief clmly distinguish the owner of the pioperty,
Diley Ridge Medical Center, from tho party responsible for the taxes, Canal Winchester
MOB LLC. Brief at 1. `Ihus, the record before this board indiwes that the underlying
complaint was filed by the lessee of the property, rathcr than the titled owner,;
R.C. 5715.13 outlsms who has standing to file a decrem complaint a;id
provides that "CtIhe county board of revision shaft not decrease anY -raluation unless a
party affected themby x who is authorized to file a complaint under section 57I5.19 of
the Rzvised Code makes and files with the board a written application therefor, verified
by oath, showing the facts uPs^n which it is claizaed such decrease should be made.'>
FT.utherrrz.ore, with regard to who may file a complaint, R.C. 5715.19 provides that
"[ajny person owning taxable real property in the county or in a taxing district with
ter.-itory in the county" may file a complaint or "a person owning taxable real property in
tin its brief, the appeltants sate that the amdertying complazFat was filed both by Diley Ridge Meedcal Center andCanal 'WfinciZester MCJB LLC. $raef at 1. Hovrever,d1x cecord does not suppart this centeration.
2
A-1 0
, .k
an.othcr county may file such a complaint only with regard to any such determination
affecting real property in the county t-hat is located in thv- same taxing distric-t as that
person`s real property is located." Specific to the instant case, in City of ° Dayton v.
iVantgoarzery Cty. BA of Revision (J"an. 18, 20 0 8), BTA No. 20 0 6-Z-1811, tmeported9
this board addressed the jurisdictional validity of a ccrmpla€nt filed ky a leme of
property, holding as follows:
"The rights of a lessee wydlin the :read propei-ty valuationrealm are well ^stablzshed> IhIale a Iessee may be theowner of an equitable inter,.st in real property, a Iossee isnot the holder of legal title thereto, See Performing ArtsSchool of Metro. Toledo, k'nc, v. WiWn,s (2004), 104 OhioSt.3d 284, 2004-Oh1o-6389. This is an zrsportantd%stinction because the holder of legal title of re^ propertyhas standing to fiIo a complaint under R.C. 5715.119,whereas the owncr of an equitable interest in real Pro^^rtydoes not. See Victoria Plaza Ltd Liab. Co. v. C°uyahogaCty. Bd. of.Revzsion (1999), 86 Ohio S<3d 181, 183 (°Thus,a person ^^^^g property has legal title to it; a personhaving the beneficial interest in property has possession ofall characteristics of ownership other than ^^aal #itle. SineeR.C. 5715.19 docs not contain language allowing someoneother than the person holding legal title to file a complaint,we ^onclude that the owner of an equitable interest in realproperty does not have standing to file a complaint.');Soc^ety Maf-ional Bank v. Wood Cty. Bd. o)Revi.sion (1998),81 Ohicr St.3d 401 (R.C. 5715.19 gov^^ who can file acomplaint); Public Square Tower One v. Cuyahoga Cty.Bd of Revision (I996), 34 Ohio App.3d 49, 516 N.E.2d1280, syRabus (`As used in KC. 5715.19, the term `owner'refers to the owner on the d.ate- when avalaaatiQn complaintwas fila'). See, also, Performing Arts, supra (a lesseelacks standing to file an application seeking to exernpt realproperty and the fact that the owner joins in the applicataonafter the filing deadLta^^ has passed " not cure thejurisdictional defect); 1^arth Olmsted Bd, of Edn. ^r.Cuyahoga Cty. W. of,Reviszon (1998), 122 Ohio App.3d654, 702 N.E.2d 518 (lessee and non-owner of propertylacked standing to f^e a decrease complaint with the board
A-l I
y ° .2' . I f
of re^vision)', Berea 04, School I_3fst; Bd, of Edn. v.^uyahoga Cty. ,8'd. of Revtsiora (June 29, 2007)s BTA No.2006-Z-1 19C, unreported; Color JIdcrt* v. Cuyahoga C^Bd- of ,^^vision (run^ 29, 2007), BTA No. 2006-Z„I347,unrepnrted." Id. at 9- 10.
See, also, Top Spin LLC v. Lucas C4,> Bd cf.hevi.sion (Mar. 28, 2013), BTA No. 2011-
Q-3 879, mrepcsrledY Fauble v. Mon."gome,ry C't ,̂ Bd of Revision (Sept. 25, 2012), BTA
No. 20i0-Y-2612, unreported; Berea City School Dist Bd afEdai. v. CwyahogaCt'j}. Rd:
of Revision (Aug. 28, 2012), BTA ^d°Gs. 201 I-A-3424, 3425, unreported; Leister Game
& Novelty Co. .^LC v. Lucas Cty. Ed of R evisian (June 8, 2010), BTA No. 2049a M-
2403, untepolted.
The case law is clear that as a lessee, Canad, Winchester ^IOB LLC did not
have standing to file the underlying complaint. Therefore, it is the decision of the 130a„d
of Tax Appeals that the initial complaint filed with the BOR was insufficient to uzvok^
that tribunal's jutisdiction. According^y, this matter is hereby rernanded to the BOR
with ita.structicans to dismiss the underlying complaint which origimted this action.
Shereby certify the foregoing to be a Yc€te andcomplete copy of the action taken by the Boardof Tax Appeals of de State of {7hio andmitercxi upon its jflumal this day, with rapectto the captioned mattcr.
JOA.J. Gmebes°, Boa(d Secretary
4
A-12
01f1 812012
Minutes of the Fairfield Coun Board of Revision
The Fairfield County Board of Revision convened today, Wednesday, 3'aniaary 18, 2012at approximately 10:30AM. T'rcswt was County Cormnissaonez Mike Kig,ar, Coza"ItyAuditor Jon A. Slater, Tr., County'1'ressurer Lnan Kuhs, Assisiant C`ounty Prosecutor7ason Dolin, I3eYputy AurlitorTAppraiser -Noei Sodders and Deputy Auditor/LeadAppraiser Greg Fo rquer.
Mr. Forquer pxesented to tl.ge board for decas°i.on BOR case #i 0-448. Copies of thetp-anscrxgt of the 101I7111 hearing were c€istrib-Lzted and reviewed by the board., AuditorSlater made a motion to retain the current Auciitor's vat-ue in this case. Tteasurer Kuhaseconded the motion. Commissioner Kiger called for disoussian.
Deputy Auditor Sodders coztfir:taied the due diligence on the Auditor's office part inc:ogifisrrfaing the 100 percent completion in valuing tliis propert-y as of the 1! i /2010 tax liendate. Auditor Slater asked what the effective date oi the A^.clitor's cost se13:eduIe is wbichDeputy Auditor Forquer xnformed the board -%,ras 2007. Auditor Slater commented that hecould reot place any weight on the draw schedule tl-iat -was presented. Commissioner Kigereommerzted that no appraisal was presented. Seeing no furilier discussion CommissionerKiger called the vote whieh vras approved -a-nznimously by voice vote.
With no fur^.h.er actzon Tzemumr Kuim made a mtion to recess, second b-y AuditorSlateg.Motion passed -ananimously
Respectfully Submitted,
r^̂.^i^
Slater, ^x.Fairfield CountyAuditor, Secretary of the Fairfield County Board of Revision
xc: Brsan. Kuhn, Nfike Kiger, Jason Dolin, Greg ForquerJASBOR file
. A-U
Board of RevisionEXHIBIT A
Fairfield County - Ohio Jon A. .Slater, Jr., Auditor
Secretary Board of Revision
Certified Notice to Property Owner or 1iis/her agent:Board of Revision Case 10-0448
c u Flo'Fax Year: 2010Date: January 13, 2032
In accordance with Ohio Revised Code 57i5.20, the Fairfield County Board of Revision hereby certifies its acfton inthe matter of the above complaint, relating to reai praperty on the tax list of Fairfield Coun.y in the name af:DiLE^Y fftIDCE MEDICAL CENTER
Further Described as:PARCEL NUMBER LEGAL DE5CRiFT6OiR3 TAX DISTRICT'1142-03984.90 R 20 T? 5 S 29 NE %9EDtC:AL OFF[Gi: & PARKING CACIAL WINCHESTER LSC:
Said case having hee-rs presented by the complainant and after due consideratiari and review of evidencepresented, The Board has arrived at the following decision:
PARCEL NUMBER PREVIOUS 2010 ADJUSTED 2010
'E342-03884.9Q
MARKET VALUE7921590
MARKET VALUE7921590
The abnue stated value is the fina[ action oftisis Board. Further appeal as to this decision matr be made to the Board
of Tax Appeals and/or Common Pleas Court as specified irs the Ohio Rebrised Code 5717.02 arad 5727.02_ Appeal
forms - which must be returned to the Board of Tax Appeals wit'i'Sin 30 days --- wifS be fezrraished to you upon
request. IFyou have any questions please ca3lthe Auditor's office at (740) 652-7{330-
Sincerely,
cc: BRUCE H.BC€R#{HmLDER,ESQ
Jon A. Siatcr,.Jr., SecretaryBoard of Revision
210 East Main Street Lancaster, Ohio 43130-3882Phone (740) 652-703D Fax (740) 687-6781 reaies€ate.co.fafrfiePd.oh.us
f1-i.4
"-R. .
DTE FORM 4
(Revised 01/07) NOTICE OF APPEAL FROA^ A DECISION OF A COUNTYR,C. 5717.01 BOARD OF REVISION TO T^ BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
1) 61 50 E. Broad St.,Co'.umbus, OH 4321 3-'# 5742) 1533 Lake Shore Drive, Columbus, OH 43204
V. AppALTDITO:i"Z ANI? TTfB BOARD OF REVISION
of Fairfield Couaa,^Ohio
(Names of other appellees, if any) A.ppellee(s).
D
^^^133 '2012
BOARD OF TAX APPEALSCOLUMBUS, OHIO
BTA Case No.
READ LMPORTANT FILING INFORNL4TION ON BACK BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM
The Appellant appeals the decision of the Board of Revision to the Board of Tax A.ppeais in the matter of thecoinplaznt against the sTalue for tax year 2010 for the real property or manufactured or mobile i'CCSme describedbelow. The coniplaint was filed by:8nr.e H. 8vrkfioider, E sq. 36D Sprua Stseet, Fipar 4ne Colv:nhus OH 43215
Name A.ddress City Sta.te Zip
The Board rafRevfsymn decision was mailed on (date) 01t1812012Owner's Niattae DiEey Ridge Medical Center
Owster's Address6'950 E. Braad St., Columbus, OH 43213-1574
and a copy is attached as Ea.liii:ait A.
PARCEL OR REGIS'1"i',.AT1C}NNUNMER ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
The taxable values determined by the County Auditor and the Eoa.rd of Revision and the taxable and market valuescla.imed by the appellant for the tax year are as follows (If more than one parcel or manufacta.t.red or mobile home,shoviT total value ofparceis or homes be1o-w and attach the values for the individual parcels or homes as Exhibit D):
City {^
614 221-5218 ?DPhone Number y $
( 614 )Fax Number (ff aray)
0
F E B 13 2012 JPrint Name and Title ofRepreseratative
02t1 {}t201 2
I7atekboyie@wiies[avv.com
EmO Address (Tf any)
A-15
FOR ALL FUTURE NOTICES:
300 Spruce Btreet; Floor O€ie
Mailing Address Appeilal^t or epr s nta.tive (signature)
Columbus ^ OH 43215 Kerry T. Boyle, Esq.
... x . "
XH96f^',A
Boa rdE
RevisionFairfield County - Ohio Jon A. Slater, 1r., Auditor
Secretary Board of Revision
Certified Not€ce to Property t7vsner or his/her eget:t:Board of Revision Case 10-0448 AOI-t Pik ff
Tax Year: 2010Date: 1an;raey lS, 2012
In accordance with Ohio Revised Code 5715.20, the Fairfield County Board of Revision hereby certifies its action inthe matter of rhe above cornpEaint, reiating to real property on the tax list of Fairfield County irt the name of:DILEY RIDGE NIfnC31CAL CENTER
Further Described as:PARCEL NUMBER LEGA€. CaESCRfPT1ON TAX DISTRICT`042-03884.90 R 20 T 15 5 29 NE MEDICAL OFFICE & PARKING CAhlAL WINCHESTER L_St?
Said case having been presented i;y the cornp3ainarst and after due consideratioly and review of evidencepresented, The Board has arrived at the following dec'is+on;
PARCEL NUMBER PREVIOUS 2010 ADJUSTED 2010
MARKET VALUE MARKET VALUE`042-03384.90 7921590 7921590
The above stated value is the final action of this Board. Furtter appeal as to this decis€ors t-nay be niade to the Board
of Tax Appeals and/or Corznaoe Pleas Court as specified in the Ohio iievised Code 5717,02 and 5717.02. Appeal
farrns -- which must be returned tn ^iZe Board of Tax Appeals withirs'0 days --- will be furnished to you upDn
rzq:resti. if you have any questions please call the Auditcrr's office at {740} 652-7030.
If more than csne parcel is included, see "M ultipIe Parce;s" on back.Address of proper
Diley Rd., Canal Winchester, Ohio 431'0
,ipai use of pl-operty: medical office buincrease or decrease in taxable value sou:rcel Number Com Iainant's
Gclumn ATrue Val:ze
042-03884-90 I $3,460,44}0
in.iori of ValueColunin B
Taxable Va€:ze;35% of C olumn9,2'! I,C^Io
the foifQwina reasons:
value
Column CCurrent Taxable Value
(From I'ax Bill)
$2,772,560
zero in Column D.
Go3untn T?Clrange in Taxable Va[ue (+ Qr -}
(COt. B minus Go€. C)
3 ,56i,5UV)
Property was still under ccnstructioQ as of Jarttiasy 1, 2010 and as st.rch, the value as listed on the tax bill is in excess of thevalue afithe real property as of January 1, 2€110.
10) Was property sold vri.t'hin the €ast 3 years? Yes 13 No 13 1_.inlno+,grn 13. If yes, show date of saiesale price S : and attach ;nfozrnation explained in "°lnstructions for Question 10" on back.
and
11) Ifprepertyr was not sold but hras listed for saie in the last 3 years, attach a copy of listitrg agreement or otlte.r avai?able evidence.
12) If any improvements were completed in the last 3 years, show date - and total +:.cst $
13) Do yca intend to present the testimony or report of a professional qpprazser? Yes ® No E3 Unknuwn ®.
14) If}rau have filed a pri^.-ir car€rpzaint on this parce€ since the last reappransal or update of propes-ty values gn the county, the reason for tnevaluation change requested must be one of tl3ose below. Please checl, at[ that applv and explain on attached slzeet. See R,C.5715.19(A)(2) for a complete explanation.
D The property was sold in ar^ arm's length transaction; [3 The property lost vatue due to a casualty;13 A. substantial improvement was added to the property5 13 Occupancy change of at €east 15% had a substantial economic impact on the
I declare under penalties of perjury that thiska.ov;ledge and beliet'is true, correct and eQrnpl
,W Cliapter 5715. Boards of Z.evision, Equalization of Assessments (Refs & Arznos)r,w Practice and I'rocedure
^*^ ► 5745.19 Complaints; tender of tax or lesser amount; penalties; common levelof assessment to be determined
(A) As used in this section, "member" has the same tneaning as in section 1705.01 offhe Re-vised Code.
(1) Sul-ijec.t to division (A)(2) of this section, a camptaitlt against any of the fcliowing deterrn-inations for the current tax year shall be filed with tlie county auditor on or before the thim.-first day of March of tlze ensiiiiia tax year or the date of closing of the coltectian for the firsthalf of real and public utility property taxes for the current mx year, whichever is later:
(a) Any classification niade under section 5711041 of the Revised Code;
(b) Any cietermination made under section 5713.32 or 5713.35 of t(ic R.ev'sseci Code;
(c) Any recoupment charge levied under section 57 13.35 of ilie Revised Code;
(d) The determination of the total valuation or assessinent of any parcel that appears on t}ze tax.list, except parcels assessed by the tax cominissioner pursuant to section 5727.06 of the Re-vi3eCI C£3de'
(e) The detercaiinat€on of the total valuation of any parcel that appears on the agricultural landtax list, except parcels assessed by the tax commissioner pursuant to section 5727.06 of tIieRevised Code;
(f) Any determination mad.e under division {A) of sectlo33 > 19.30' of the Revised Code.
If siieIt a complaint is filed by mail or certified mail, the date of the United States postrn:ai•kplaced on the envelope or sender's receipt by the postal service shall be treated as the date offl.ing. A private rneter postrnark- on an envelepe is noi a valid postmark for purposes of estab-
0 2013 Thomson Reuters.Ivcs Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
A-18
R.C. § 571 5.I9
lishing the eliii^ date.
Page 2
An.y person owning taxable real property in the couiity or in a taxiiig district with territory inthe county; such a person's spouse; an individual who is retained by such a persoal and vJlaoholds a d4sigaiation foni a professional assessmegz t orgaiiizatiart, such as the iiistitute forpro-i'essiQiials i7i taxation, the national council of property taxation, or the interna.tional associationof assessing officers; a public accountant who holds a peri-nit un°1er 4cction 470 1.30 oI'tlle ize-vised Code, a general or residential real estate appraiser licensed or certified under Chapter4763. of the Rvv;sed Code, or a real estate broker licensed under Chapter 4735. of the RevisedCode, w1io is rwtaitted by such a person; if the person is af"irnn, cc;xspariy, assoc€ation, partner-ship, flimired [iahility° coer:pany, or coiporation, ttn officer, a salaried w:rnplc;;Tee> a partirer, or aniercalser of that person; if the person is a trust, a trustee of the trust; the board of county cssm-missioiiersy the prosecuting attcnz ey or treasurer of the coufity; the board oftownship trusteesof a€ay tcawgiship with territory withisi the comity; the board of ec9:ucatioli of any school districtwith any territory in the cotanty; or the mayor or legislative authority of any municipal corpor-ation with any territory in the couilty may file such a coiiiplaint regarding any such detererxina-tic,ir affeotiiig any real property in the ccunty, except that a ,persaly ovariiilag taxable real prop-erty in another cowzty riiay file such a complaint only with regard to any such determinationaff'ecting real property in the com3ty that is located in the sarEae taxing district as that person'sreal property is located. The county auditor shall preseiit to the couiity board of revisiojfl allcomplaints filed with the auditor.
(2) As used in divisiazi (A)(2) of this sect€oji, "interim period" means, for each county, the taxyear to which section 5715.24 of the Revised Code applies and each subsequent tax. year taaitilthe tax year in which that sectaczi applies agaiii.
No persQfi, board, or officer shall file a cozn.plaiigt agaiizst the valuation or assesstnent of anypai-cel that appears oii the tax list if it filed a coinplairit agaisist the valu.atiori or assessrteitt ofthat parcel for any prior tax year in the same interiira period, unless the person, board, or of-ficer alleges that tlie valuation or assessment should be changed due to otie or more of the fol-lowing circumstances that csccurred after the tax lien date for the tax year for which the priorcosnp[aint was filed and that the circumstances we3v not takeii iiito consideration witli respectto the prior coanplaint:
(a) The property was sold in an arm's length tratisaction, as described in sectim<l 5713.03 of theRevisf^dCosie:
(b) The prcperty Ieast value due -ilo some casualty;
(c) Substantial improvemeaat was added to the prcperty;.
i.^ 20I3 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
A-19
R.C. § 5715. I 9 Page 3
(d) An increase or decrease of at least fifteen per cent in the property's ocetgpancy fias had astibstazttial economic impact oti the property.
(3) If a county board of revision, the board of tax appeals, or any court dismisses a complaintfiled Lirtder ttiis section or section 571 5.13 of the F;.evised Code ^`^?r the reason that the act offiling the complaint was the unaEithorized practice of law or the person -fiiing the complaintwas ei3gaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the party affected by a decrease in valuationor the party's agent, or the persot3 owning taxable real propet-ty in the county or Tn a taxingdistrict with territory in the cgurtg7, may retile the cornplaint, notwithstanding division (A)(2)n- fthis section.
(4) Nomr°rthstanding division (A)(2) of this section, a person, board, or officer may file a com-plaint against the valuation or assessment ox any parcel that appears on the tax list if it filed acompiaint against the valuatioii or assessmerat; of that parcel for any prior tax year in the sameinterim period if the person, board, or officer w°st€idreva the complaint before the cotnplaintwas heard by the board.
(B) Within thirty days after the last date sijch complaints may be 17i1ed, the audite^r sha:Jt givenotice of each complaint in whicti the stated amount of overvaluation, unciervalctatiola, dis-criminatory valuation, illegal valuation , or iticorrect detertninatiori is at least seventeen thou-sand Cve hi?.ndred dollars to each property owner whose property is the subject of the com-plaint, if the complaint v,,Ts not f-ited by the owner or the owtier's spouse, and to each board ofeducation ,%,hose school district may be affected by the complaint. Withiii thirty days after re-ceiving such. notice, a board of educa.tion; a property oveier; the owner's sgouse; an individualw31o is retained by such an owner and NvIio holds a designatiop. from a professional assessmentorgarsizatior3:, such as the institute for professionals in taxatioii, the national couticil of prop-erty taxation, or the international association of assessing off'icers; a public accountant wlioholds a permit under sectioti =170 ; .10 of the Revised Code, a general or residential real estateappraiser licensed or certifieci under Chapter 4763, ofttie Revised Code, or a real estate brokerlicensed under Chapter 4735. of the Revised Code, ivho is retained by such a person; or, if theproperty owner is af-inn, compaaiy, association, partttersbip, limited liability company, cor-poration, or trust, ati officer, a salaried employee, a partner, amernber, or trustee of that prop-erty oNvner, may file a coniplaint in support of or oizjecting to the amount of alleged overval.u-atioEi, undervaluation, discriminatory valuation, illegal valuation, or incorrect detersninatioaistated in a previousfv filed complaint or objecting to the current vaiuation, tj'poti the filing ofa comptaint under this division, the board of education or the property oNvner shail be made aparty to the action.
(C) Each board of revision shall e;otitJ any complainant arid also the property owner, if theproperty owner's address is known, wheii a complaint is filed by one other than the propertyowner, by certified mail, not less than ten da-ys prior to the hearing, of the time and place thesame will be heard. The board of revision shafl hear and render its decision on a complainttivitliin ninety days after the filing thereof with the board, except that if a complaint is filed
C 2013 Thomson Retiters. No Claim to Ori;. US Gov, Works.
A-20
R.C. § 57I 5.t 9 Page 4
within thirty days after receiving notice from the auditor as provided in division (B) of thissectioti, the board shall hear and retider its decision witliin ninety days after such fiiinl.
(D) The determination of any such complaint shall relate back to the date when the Pien foriaxes or recratigsment charges for the current year attached or the date as of wltich liability forsuch year was determined. Liability for taxes and recoupment charges for such year and eachsucceeding year uzitit the complaint is f;nally deterrnined and for ai1y penalty and interest fortton.pa€yrzic:nt thereof within tige Lime required by taNv shall be based upon the deterr,^inatiori,valuation, or assessznertt as finally deterq-ained. Each complaint stiall state the amount of over-valuation, underualuution, discriminatory valuation, illegal valuation., or incorrect classifica-tion or detercazinatiazx upoii which the complaint is based. The treasurer shall accept anyamount teiidered as taxes or recouprnent charge upon property concerning urhich a complairitis then pending, coznnttted tipon the claimed va[uation as set forth in the complaint. If a com-plaint filed under this section for the currenL year is ziot determined by the board within thetinie prescribed for such determination, the complaint and azly proceedings in relation theretoshall be contitiu.ed by the board as a valid complaint for any ensuing year tzntil such complaintis finally detetrrained by the board or upon any appeal from a decision of ttYe board. In suchcase, the original complaint shall continue in effect withoLtt furLqer filing by the original tax-payer, the original ta.xpayer's assignee, or any other fierson. or entity ttutliorired to file a coni-nlalnt tinder this section..
(E) If a ta:xpayer files a complaint as to the classification, valuation, assessment, or any de-terniination affectin:g the taxpayer's own property and tenders less than the full amount oftaxes or recoupment charges as finally determined, an interest cliarge shall accrue as follows:
(1) If the amount finally determitied is less than the amount billed but more than the arnounttendered, t€ie taxpayer shall pay interest at the rate per annum prescribed by sectietri 5703.47of thc^: RevisLd Code, computed from the date that the taxes were due on the differencebetween the amount finally determined and the amount tendered. T$iis interest charge shall bein lieu of any penalty or interest charge under section 323.121 of ttle .IZevised ^',odu unless thetaxpayer failed to file a complaint and tender an arrioutit as taxes or recoupment charges with-in tlze time required by this section, in whicli case section 323.1 ^ t of the Revised Code ap-plies.
(2) If the atnotint of taxes finally determined i s equal to or greater than the amotint billed andmore than the amount tendered, the taxpayer shall pay interest at the rate prescribed by se.ct`sc.+«5703.47 ot'the lZevisc:r3 Code from the date the taxes were due on the difference between tlleamount finally deterrnined and the amount :endered, such interest to be in lieu of any interestcharge but in addition to any petaalty prescribed by sec;tioEi 323, €'! of the [Zevised t ode.
(F) Upon request of a complainant, the tax commissioner shall determine the coinznon le'veI ofassessment of real prrsperty, ir, the county for the year stated in the request that is not valued
C) '40 I3 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to fJrig. US Gov. Works.
A-? l
R.C, § 5715.19 Page 5
under section 5713,31 of t(ie Revised Code, which common level of assessment shall be ex-pressed as a percentage of true vatu,, and the com.rrion. level ol'assessrrient offands valued un-der such section, which common level of assessment shall also be expressed as a percentageof the current agricultural use value of such lands. Such determ.=.`nation shall be made on thebasis of the most recent available sales ratio studies of the cor.nmissioner and stich other factu-a1 data as the commissioner deeins pertinent.
(G) A complainant shall provide to the board of revision all information or evidence withinthe complainant's knowledge or possession that affects the real property that is the subject ofthe cosnpla s̀nt. A complainant who fails to provide such inforrnatzon or evidence is precludedfroni intraducicig it on appeal to the board of tax appeafs or the court of common pleas, exceptthat the board of tax appeals or court may admit and consider the evidence if the cornpiainantshows good cause for the cotnplainant's failure to provide the irzforniatiogi or evidence to theboard of revision.
(H) In case of the pendeitcy of any proceedincr in court based upon an alleged excessive, dgs-critniziatoay, or illegal vaiuatiori or icicorrect classification or determination, the taxnayer maytender to the treasarrer an amount as taxes upon property corn.puted zxpon the claimed valuationas set fortb. in the complaint to the court. The treasurer may accept the tender. If the tender isciot accepted, no penalty shall be assessed because of the nonpayment of the fblt taxes as-sessed.
CREDIT(S)
(2012H 509, effl 9-28-12; 2006 H 294, e#'f: 9-28-(}60 2002 l i 390, eY['. 3-4-02a 1998 I-i 694.cff. 7-30-99; 1988 H 603, ef4'. 6-24-88; 1.984 11379; 1983 I-1260; 1982 H 379: 1381 S 6; 1984H 736. 14 1.238; 1978 H 648; 1977 H I: 1976 fa 92(}; 1974 5423; 1971 S 428, H 931; 131 v H337; 129 v 582; 128 v 410; 127 v 65; 1953 H 1; GC 5609)
Current through 2013 File 40 of the 130th C.rA (20 13-2014).
(C) 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Ori;;, [JS Gov. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
C> 2013 Thomson Reuters. No C:laztn to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Kw Chapter 5715. Boards ofRevisioii; Equalization of Assessments (Refs & Annos)rij County Board of R.ovisioti
..*.+ 5715.13 Application for decrease in valuation
Page 1
(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, the county board of revision shall notdecrease any vaiuation utiiess a party affected tbereby or Nvho is authorized to file a complaintunder secticn 5715.19 of the Re4riscd. Code makes a.aid files with the boarcl awritters applica-tion therefor, verified by oath and signature, shoNving the facts upon ivhicl3 it is claimed suchdecrease should be made.
(B) The county board of revision may authorize a policy for the filing of an electronic com-plaint under section 5715.19 of the Revised Code and the filing of an electronic applicatioritherefer under this section, subject to the approval of the tax commissioner. An electroniccomplaint need not be sworn to, but shall contain an electronic verification and shall be sub-scribed to by the person filiiig the complaint: °`l declare under penalties of perjury that thiscomplaint has been examined by me and to the best of my knowledge and belief is true, cor-rect, and complete. [FN 1 ]
CREDIT(S)
(2012 t Y5()9, efi: f3-?b-1 2; 2011 H 225, eff. 3-22- f.2: 1998 I-i 694, eff. 3-30-99; 1953 H 1, eff.10-1-53; GC 5601)
[FN 1] Prior and current versions differ; although no amendment to this langnage wasiiidicated in 2012 H 509, the c(osing quotation mark was dropped after "complete."
Current throLigl3: 2013 File 40 of the 130th GA (2013-2014}.
(C) 2013 Thomson ReLaters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works,
END OF DOCUMENT
C) 2013 Thomson R.euters. No Claim to f3rig. US Gov. Works.
