ABC TGAB, L.L.C. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision , 2021 Ohio 4185 ( 2021 )

[Cite as ABC TGAB, L.L.C. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2021-Ohio-4185.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ABC TGAB, LLC, : JUDGES:
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.
Plaintiff - Appellant : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs- :
:
STARK COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, : Case No. 2021CA00030
et al., :
:
Defendants - Appellees : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court
of Common Pleas, Case No.
2020CV01309
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 24, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendants-Appellees
BRIAN T. WINCHESTER ROBERT M. MORROW
JESSE M. SCHMIDT Lane Alton
McNeal Schick Archibald & Biro Co., LPA Two Miranova Place, Suite 220
4608 St. Clair Ave. Columbus, Ohio 43215
Cleveland, Ohio 44103
Mary Jo Shannon Slick
Stark County Educational Service
Center
6057 Strip Ave. N.W.
North Canton, Ohio 44720
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 2
Baldwin, P.J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant ABC TGAB, LLC appeals from the February 19, 2021
Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas affirming the decision of the
Stark County Board of Revision.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant ABC TGAB, LLC (hereinafter “ABC”) purchased seven parcels of
land on December 5, 2019. These undeveloped seven parcels, which totaled 43.39 acres,
were part of the seven parcels purchased from Tam-O-Shanter Company in December
of 2019 for $8,750,000. The seven parcels (10011537, 10011539, 10011540, 10011541,
10011542, 10011543, 10011544) totaled 59.12 acres. Two of the seven parcels
(10011540, 10011541), which totaled 15.73 acres, were simultaneously sold a third party
(Meijer Stores Limited Partnership) for $4,600,000 in another arm’s length transaction
recorded on December 6, 2019. This left a remainder of 43.39 acres.
{¶3} Appellee Jackson Local School District Board of Education received tax
revenue from the parcels. Appellee filed a valuation complaint with the Board of Revision
for the tax lien date of January 1, 2019. Appellee sought a value of $4,150,000 for the
five parcels , which represented the difference between the total purchase price for
appellant’s seven parcels ($8,750,000) and the sale price of the two parcels ($4,600,000)
sold to the third party, Meijer Stores Limited Partnership. In turn, appellant, based upon
the testimony and appraisal of its appraiser, Daniel Miller, sought a valuation of
$3,253,000. The Board of Revision found in favor of appellee and issued a decision on
August 27, 2020 determinizing that the value of the five parcels was $4,150,000.
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 3
{¶4} Appellant then appealed to the trial court. At the hearing before the trial
court, appellant’s expert appraiser, Daniel Miller, testified that because the five parcels
had different potential best uses and would likely be partially combined as part of any
sale, he treated them as five separate properties. As of January 1, 2019, all of the
properties were undeveloped land. Miller concluded that parcels 10011543 and
10011544 (+/- 6.77 acres) (Property One) were commercial vacant land and that their
highest and best use was a commercial development. The contiguous parcels were at a
four way lighted intersection with good road frontage, and good exposure and visibility.
He opined that Property One’s value was $1,185,000. With respect to parcel numbers
10011537 and 10011542 (+/- 14.92 acres) (Property Two), Miller concluded that this was
vacant residential land with a highest and best use as senior residential living or assisted
residential living with a market value of $940,000. These parcels have minimal frontage
on Fulton Drive N.W., a public road, and minimal visibility and exposure. Finally, with
respect to parcel number 10011539 (+/- 21.70 acres) (Property Three), Miller opined that
this was too was residential vacant land with a highest and best use as senior residential
living or assisted residential living with a market value of $1,128,000. This parcel has
minimal public road frontage and minimal visibility and exposure. Miller’s appraisal was
dated January 1, 2019.
{¶5} In order to arrive at his appraised values, Miller considered sales of
properties comparable to all three properties. For Property One, he considered the sales
of three similar commercial properties within the past five years and used the sales prices
of the same to arrive at a price of $175,000.00 per acre. With respect to Property Two,
Miller compared such property with four recent sales of residential properties which were
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 4
developed into senior/assisted living residences and with respect to Property Three, he
compared such property with five sales of residential properties which were developed
into senior/assisted living /skilled nursing facilities. Miller arrived at a price of $63,000 per
acre and $52,000 per acre respectively.
{¶6} Appellee did not have any licensed appraiser or any other expert witness
testify at the hearing, Rather, appellee subtracted the sale price of the two parcels
($4,600,000) from appellant’s purchase price of the seven parcels ($8,750,000) , to arrive
at an aggregate value of the remaining five parcels of $4,150,000.
{¶7} The Transcript of the Board of Revision hearing was filed and briefs were
filed by the parties. As memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on February 19, 2021, the
trial court affirmed the decision of the Board of Revision.
{¶8} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignment of error on appeal:
{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN
IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF REVISION.”
I
{¶10} Appellant, in its sole assignment of error, argues that the trial court erred
and abused its discretion in affirming the decision of the Board of Revision. We disagree.
{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 5717.05, a trial court may hear an appeal from the decision
of the county's Board of Revision. R.C. 5717.05 requires more than a mere review of the
decision of the Board of Revision. Black v. Bd. of Revision of Cuyahoga Cty., 16 Ohio
St.3d 11, 14, 475 N.E.2d 1264 (1985). In reviewing the Board's decision, “the common
pleas court is to give the * * * decision no deference.” Lockhart Dev. Co. v. Summit Cty.
Bd. of Revision, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25728, 2011–Ohio–5000, ¶ 8. “Under [R.C.]
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 5
5717.05, a common pleas court must ‘independently weigh and evaluate all evidence
properly before it’ in order to ‘make an independent determination concerning the
valuation of the property at issue.’ “ Id. at ¶ 8, quoting Black, supra at 13, 475 N.E.2d
1264. “On the other hand, an appellate court should only disturb the trial court's
independent judgment upon an abuse of discretion.” JRB Holdings, L.L.C. v. Wayne Cty.
Bd. of Revision, 9th Dist. No. 05CA0048, 2006–Ohio–1042, ¶ 6. An abuse of discretion
means that the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in its
ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶12} Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution requires property to be “taxed
by uniform rule according to value.” “[T]he value or true value in money of any property is
the amount for which that property would sell on the open market by a willing seller to a
willing buyer. In essence, the value of property is the amount of money for which it may
be exchanged, i.e., the sales price.” State ex rel. Park Inv. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 175
Ohio St. 410, 412, 195 N.E.2d 908 (1964).“).
{¶13} While appellant argues that the trial Board of Revision erred in not accepting
the report and testimony of its appraiser, we note that the it is not required to adopt the
appraisal methodology espoused by any expert or witness. See Youngstown Sheet &
Tub Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. Of Revision, 66 Ohio St.2d 398, 422 N.E.2d 846, paragraph
one of the syllabus (1981).
{¶14} Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it affirmed
the decision of the Board of Revision. Appellant argues that the trial court completely
rejected the report of the appraiser and that appellee failed to present any testimony
challenging the appraiser’s findings. We disagree.
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 6
{¶15} There was evidence before the trial court that appellant purchased seven
contiguous parcels for $8,750,000 in December of 2019 and subsequently shortly
thereafter sold two of the parcels for $4,600,000. As noted by appellee, this was
documented by the relevant deeds and conveyance forms. Subtracting $4,600,000 from
$8,750,000 equals $4,150,000.
{¶16} R.C. 5713.03 requires county auditors to:
determine, as nearly as practicable, the true value of the fee simple
estate, as if unencumbered * * *,” of real property. In so doing, if the property
“has been the subject of an arm's length sale between a willing seller and a
willing buyer within a reasonable length of time, * * * the auditor may
consider the sale price * * * to be the true value for taxation purposes. Id.Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn v. Franklin Cty Bod. Of Revision., 159 Ohio St.3d 283,
2020-Ohio-353, 150 N.E.3d 877, ¶ 28.
{¶17} R.C. 5713.03 creates a rebuttable presumption that a property's recent sale
price in an arm's-length transaction constitutes the best evidence of the true monetary
value. Id. at ¶ 29, citing Terraza 8, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 150 Ohio St.3d
527, 2017-Ohio-4415, 83 N.E.3d 916, ¶ 33, citing Conalco, Inc. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of
Revision, 50 Ohio St.2d 129, 363 N.E.2d 722 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus, citing
R.C. 5713.01. The court also recognizes “ ‘a companion presumption that ‘a submitted
sale price has met all the requirements that characterize true value,’ subject to rebuttal
by proof that the sale was not at arm's length or not recent.’ ” Id. at ¶ 29, quoting Terraza
8 at ¶ 32, quoting Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 78
Ohio St. 3d 325, 327, 677 N.E.2d 1197 (1997).
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 7
{¶18} In the case sub judice, the trial court focused on the actual sales price of
the parcels. The Ohio Supreme Court has consistently held the best evidence of true
value for real estate taxation purposes is a recent sale in an arm's-length transaction
between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Amerimar Canton Office, L.L.C. v. Stark Cty.
Bd. of Revision, 5th Dist. Stark No.2014CA00162, 2015–Ohio–2290, ¶ 20 citing
Zazworsky v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision, 61 Ohio St.3d 604, 575 N.E.2d 842 (1991).
See also Hillard City School Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 53 Ohio St.3d
57, 558 N.E.2d 1170 (1990).
{¶19} An arm's-length transaction is “ ‘one which encompasses bidding and
negotiation on the open market between a ready, willing and able buyer, and a ready,
willing and able seller, both being mentally competent, and neither acting under duress
or coercion.’ “Walters v. Knox Cty. Bd. of Revision, 47 Ohio St.3d 23, 25, 546 N.E.2d 932,
935, (1989). “[A]n arm's-length sale is characterized by these elements: it is voluntary,
i.e., without compulsion or duress; it generally takes place in an open market; and the
parties act in their own self-interest.” Id. This showing may be made by, for example,
furnishing a deed and a conveyance-fee statement. See Dauch v. Erie Cty. Bd. of
Revision, 149 Ohio St.3d 691, 2017-Ohio-1412, 77 N.E.3d 943, ¶ 17, citing Worthington
City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 27, 2009-Ohio-
5932, 918 N.E.2d 972, ¶ 28.
{¶20} In the case sub judice, four exhibits were presented by appellant to the
Board of Revision regarding the sales, These exhibits are as follows:
{¶21} Exhibit 1 – A Conveyance Fee Statement signed on December 4, 2019 and
filed on December 6, 2019 for the sale of the two Meijer Parcels by ABC.
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 8
{¶22} Exhibit 2 – A Conveyance Fee Statement signed on December 4, 2019 and
filed on December 5, 2019 involving the original sale transaction between Tam-O-Shanter
to ABC for the seven parcels.
{¶23} Exhibit 3- A Deed from Tam-O-Shanter to ABC signed on December 4,
2019 for the seven parcel sale which was recorded on December 5, 2019.
{¶24} Exhibit 4 – A Deed from ABC to Meijer signed on December 5, 2019 for the
sale of the two Meijer Parcels which was recorded on December 6, 2019.
{¶25} The trial court found that “[w]ith the presentation of this evidence, rebuttable
presumptions arise that the sales prices meet all of the requirements of true value and
constitute the best evidence of the true value of the collective properties. Thus, the burden
shifts to Appellant to present evidence to the contrary.”
{¶26} Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the trial court did consider the testimony
and appraisal of appellant’s appraiser, Daniel Miller. Rather, the trial court found that
Miller’s opinions were not as persuasive as the actual sales themselves and did not
constitute superior evidence of value. The trial court found that there were a number of
flaws contained within Miller’s appraisal. For example, the trial court, as noted by
appellee, noted that Miller was analyzing the ABC parcels in pieces rather than as a whole
and that Miller used sales transactions occurring in 2014, 2015 and 2015 as comps. The
trial court further did not find persuasive Miller’s belief that it was proper to categorize
some three of the five parcels as “residential” when they were listed in the Property
Record Cards as “commercial” and all five parcels were zoned as commercial. Moreover,
the trial court noted in a footnotes on page 10 of its decision that just eight months after
the initial sales transactions involving appellant, appellant, in August of 2020, sold an
Stark County, Case No. 2021CA00030 9
additional eight acres of property that Miller had categorized as “Property Two type
properties for $1,800,000 which would represent a value of $225,000 per acre. The trial
court, in its decision, stated that “[t]his contrast is particularly striking when one considers
that Mr. Miller’s appraisal results in an average per-acre price of just $75,000 (a total of
43.49 acres with a taxable value of $3,253,000).” The trial court found that the actual
sale price per acre was more persuasive than the “theoretical per-acre valuation”
suggested by Miller.
{¶27} Based on the forgoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in affirming the decision of the Board of Revision. The trial court’s well-reasoned decision
was not arbitrary, unconscionable or unreasonable.
{¶28} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶29} Accordingly, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
By: Baldwin, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Wise, John, J. concur.