COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67000 UNITED TELEPHONE CREDIT UNION : INC. : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF : REVISION, ET AL. : : Defendant-appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : APRIL 13, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Board of Tax Appeals Case No. 91-P- : 1208 JUDGMENT : Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Robert J. Zavesky Lynn C. Slaby Berger & Kirschenbaum, Prosecuting Attorney Co., L.P.A. Marc R. Wolf 1919 East 13th Street Assistant Pros. Attorney Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Kim D. Amponsah Assistant Pros. Attorney Tax Division 312 Society Building 159 S. Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308-1317 -2- Co., L.P.A. 1919 East 13th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114 -2- HARPER, P.J.: Appellant, United Telephone Credit Union, Inc. (United), appeals from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals affirming the property value determination made by appellee, the Summit County Board of Revision. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. United acquired the subject property located at 1145 Massillon Road, in Akron, Ohio (Parcel No. 67-00-816) by merger with Goodyear Aerospace Credit Union (Aerospace). United obtained the property without cost. The record shows that Communication Workers of America was a tenant of United. It paid money to United. United claimed that it made several attempts to sell the property but no buyer came forth. Appellee claimed that United had not made adequate attempts to sell the property. Appellee charges that United had not listed the property with a real estate broker during the five years prior to the tax assessment. The property was initially valued for the 1988 tax year. In 1990, the Summit County Auditor conducted a statutory sexennial reappraisal of the property. The property was appraised higher in 1990 than it was in 1988. United appealed the reappraisal to the BTA. The BTA affirmed the auditors valuation and determined the value of the property as follows: TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE Land $14,060 $ 4,920 Building $61,940 $21,680 TOTAL: $76,000 $26,600 -3- The BTA's decision was based on the testimony of appellee's witness, Mr. Raymond Valle, a state licensed fee appraiser, and other evidence. II. Appellant files the following error for review: THE PROPERTY VALUATION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, FOR PARCEL #67-00816, AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS FROM THE RECORD AS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL. A. The Board of Tax Appeal's decision is unreasonable and unlawful since (1) it "presumed the Board of Revision valuation to be valid and (2) it relied upon the Board of Revision valuation without stating the basis for the Board of Revision's decision. B. The Board of Tax Appeals unreasonably and unlawfully accepted Appellee's unreliable appraisal evidence, which is not an accurate assessment of Parcel #67-00816, as defined by the Ohio Administrative Code. C. The Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully when it refused to adequately consider Appellant's testimony, as to the value of Parcel #67-00816, when it was the only competent and probative evidence before the Board. Appellant challenges the BTA's decision in its sole assignment of error as unreasonable and unlawful. Appellant argues that the decision of the BTA was unreasonable and unlawful because, (1) it based its decision upon a mistake of law, (2) failed to state the basis for its decision, (3) it accepted an appraisal which is unreliable as defined by the Ohio Administrative Code, and (4) failed to adequately consider Appellant's evidence when it was the only competent and probative evidence before the Board. Appellant's challenge has no merit. -4- Ohio Constitution Article 12 Sec. 2 states that "Laws shall be passed, taxing all real and personal property according to its true value in money ***." R.C. 5713.03 provides in pertinent part as follows: The county auditor, from the best sources of information available, shall determine, as nearly as practicable, the true value of each separate tract, lot, or parcel of real property and of buildings structures, and improvements located thereon. *** In determining the true value of any tract, lot, or parcel of real estate under this section, if such tract, lot, or parcel has been the subject of an arm's length sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer within a reasonable length of time, either before or after the tax lien date, the auditor shall consider the sale price of such tract, lot, or parcel to be the true value for taxation purposes. However, the sale price in an arm's length transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer shall not be considered the true value of the property sold if subsequent to (A) The tract, lot, or parcel of real estate loses value due to some casualty; (B) An improvement is added to the property. In Conalco Inc. v. Monroe County Board of Revision (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 129, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the best evidence of the "true value in money" of real property is an actual, recent sale of the property in an arm's length transaction. See, also, Zazworsky v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 604; Hillard City School Bd. of Edn v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 57. Appellant argues that the action of the Board of Revision in fixing the "true value" of real property is not presumptively valid, as argued by the Board of Revision and affirmed by the BTA. We agree. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the rule of presumptive -5- validity espoused by the Board in past cases in Cambridge Arms v. Bd. of Revision (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 493. In the instant case, the presumption of validity by the BTA regarding the fixing of the true value of the property in question is rejected by this court as an invalid statement of the law. The law, however, remains that the party seeking reduction in property value has the burden of proving that he is entitled to such reduction. R.R.Z. Association v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 202; Mentor Exempted Village Bd. of Edn. v. Lake Cty Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 318, 319; Western Industries v. Hamilton Cty Bd. of Revision (1960), 170 Ohio St. 340, 342; Rollman and Sons Co. v. Bd. of Revision (1955), 163 Ohio St.363. United did not present any evidence to the BTA even though it is well aware or should have been aware that it had an obligation to prove its right to a reduction in value by the preponderance of the evidence. The only evidence presented by United was its manager's testimony that United was unable to rent or sell the property. Appellee, however, countered this argument by introducing evidence establishing that money was actually paid to United by its tenant, the Communication Workers of America. The payment of which United characterized as contributions towards utility and other expenses. United's testimony concerning its failure to rent or otherwise sell the property is neither persuasive nor sufficient to satisfy its burden of showing it is entitled to a reduction in value of the property as assessed by the Board of Revision. -6- Appellee on the other hand presented appraisal testimony of a state-licensed appraiser who testified that he obtained data for each method of its appraisal from the market place and income appraisals. United argues that such appraisal is faulty, and to booster its argument cited the Board's opinion questioning some of the comparable sales utilized by the appraiser. We are no more persuaded with this argument as we were of others before it. United cannot shift its burden of proof to the party who made the valuation based on the valuer's understanding that its valuation is true and accurate. United must present its own evidence showing that appellee's valuation was faulty. Empty charges just will not do. We borrow from the language of the Ohio Supreme Court in Mentor, supra and hold that United must suffer for its inaction. United further argues that the BTA "did not set forth the basis of its findings in its decision." We disagree. The BTA did state that its decision was confined to the evidence contained in the record certified to it by the Board of Revision, the evidence of the de novo hearing and such evidence as it may obtain during the exercise of its investigatory powers. The BTA then went on to conclude that after a careful review of the record before it, appellant failed to submit sufficient evidence to support its claim that it is entitled to a reduction in value. The Ohio Supreme Court has approved factual decisions of the BTA in which it did not set forth an analysis of the evidence before it. See Alliance Towers v. Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 16, 22; Bd. of Revision of Cuyahoga Cty. v. Fodor (1968), 15 -7- Ohio St.2d 25. An appellate court is required to reverse the decision of the BTA as being unreasonable and unlawful only if it finds that the decision is not supported by the evidence, or by the law. See Cleveland Trust Co. v. Bd. of Revision (1955), 163 Ohio St. 579; Shaker Square Co. v. Bd. of Revision (1960), 170 Ohio St. 369; See, also, Conalco v. Bd. of Revision, supra. The BTA error in presumptive validity not withstanding, we are persuaded with its finding that United failed to sustain its burden of proving it was entitled to a reduction in value. Accordingly, the judgment of the Board of Tax Appeals is neither unreasonable nor unlawful and it is affirmed. -8- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Board of Tax Appeals 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. JOSEPH J. NAHRA, J., CONCURS DAVID T. MATIA, J. DISSENTS (WITHOUT DISSENTING OPINION) PRESIDING JUDGE SARA J. HARPER N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza-tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .