Papadimoulis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Aud. , 2012 Ohio 925 ( 2012 )

[Cite as Papadimoulis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Aud., 2012-Ohio-925.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97023
ALEX PAPADIMOULIS
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
vs.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY AUDITOR, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Administrative Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-750765
BEFORE: Stewart, P.J., Jones, J., and Rocco, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 8, 2012
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Dean W. Van Dress
Van Dress Legal Group Co., LLC
The Bank of Berea Building
46 Front Street
Berea, OH 44017
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Saundra J. Curtis-Patrick
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.:
{¶1} This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R.
11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the
appellant’s brief, and oral argument by appellant’s counsel. Alex Papadimoulis appeals
from a Common Pleas Court affirmance of a Board of Revision decision that refused to
overturn a real property valuation by the county auditor. Papadimoulis argues that he
submitted proof of the property’s value with evidence that he recently bought it in an
arm’s length transaction.
{¶2} We conclude that the court erred by affirming the Board of Revision’s
decision because there was no evidence of any kind to support that decision. At no point
in the appeals process of this case, before both the common pleas court and this court, has
the auditor appeared to defend the valuation. On this basis alone we can reverse the
court’s judgment because App.R. 16(C) permits us to accept Papadimoulis’s statement of
the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if his brief “reasonably appears to
sustain such action.” Papadimoulis’s brief cites to evidence that he submitted to the
Court of Common Pleas showing that he purchased the property in an arm’s length
transaction. R.C. 5717.03 states that under such circumstances, the auditor “shall
consider the sale price of such tract, lot, or parcel to be the true value for taxation
purposes.”
{¶3} The county auditor did not appear before the Court of Common Pleas, so
there was no evidence of any kind to support the board’s decision. The court recognized
this, but cited W. Industries, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 170 Ohio St. 340, 342,
164 N.E.2d 741 (1960), for the proposition that the auditor and the board are not
“required to present any evidence.”
{¶4} In Colonial Village Ltd. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 123 Ohio St.3d
268, 2009-Ohio-4975, 915 N.E.2d 1196, the Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged that the
“rules” that apply in valuation cases are: (1) the party challenging the board of revision’s
decision at the board of tax appeals has the burden of proof to establish its proposed value
as the value of the property, and (2) the board of revision (or auditor) bears no burden to
offer proof of the accuracy of the appraisal on which the county initially relies, with the
result that the board of tax appeals is justified in retaining the county’s valuation of the
property when an appellant fails to sustain its burden of proof at the board of tax appeals.
Id. at ¶ 23. Those rules were, however, subject to a narrow exception when “the
developed record before the [board of tax appeals] affirmatively negated the validity of
the county’s valuation of the property.” Id. at ¶ 24, citing Dayton–Montgomery Cty. Port
Auth. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 113 Ohio St.3d 281, 2007-Ohio-1948, 865
N.E.2d 22, ¶ 15.
{¶5} Papadimoulis offered significant evidence to show that he purchased the
property in a voluntary arm’s length transaction in a recent sale. This evidence
contradicted the board’s determination. With the absence of any evidence offered in
rebuttal by the auditor, the court had no basis for affirming the board.
{¶6} The first assignment of error is sustained. The second assignment of error,
relating to the board’s failure to give notice of the valuation hearing, is moot. App.R.
12(A)(1)(c). This cause is remanded to the court with instructions to enter judgment
valuing the subject property in the amount of $52,781.74 as prayed for in the notice of
appeal from the decision of the Board of Revision.
{¶7} This cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
It is ordered that appellant recover of appellees his costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., and
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR