Tax Appeal to Supreme Court of Ohio (21 May 2012)

James J. and Myra A. Schloemer, BTA Case No. 2009-Y-3585

vs.Appellants, . Hamilton County BOR Ref. No.

2008-068-5-203396-RG

Ohio BTA, Hamilton County Board of . (Real Property Tax)

Revision, and Hamilton County Auditor, :

Appellees.Appeal

Appellants - James J. and Myra Schloemer8075 Remington RdCincinnati, Ohio 45242-7225

Appellees - Ohio-Board of Tax Appeals30 East Broad Street, 24' FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215

Summary of BTA Findings: Per the Board of Tax Appeals Decision and Order

document (entered May 8, 2012), the BTA finds and determines that the true and taxable

values of the subject property as of the tax lien date in issue, i.e., January 1, 2008, to be the

same as those of the Hamilton County BOR's values, which are as follows:

TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE

Land $539,170 $188,710

Building $ 85,830 30,040

Total - $625,000 $218,750

MAY 2 5 7012

CLEkitUF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO 1

Appellant Introduction: The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause has two

aspects: procedural and substantive. Substantive requires that legal proceedings be conducted

in a fair manner by an impartial judge who will allow the interested parties to present fully

their complaints, grievances, and defenses. The Due Process Clause governs civil, criminal,

and administrative proceedings from the pretrial stage through fmal appeal, and proceedings

that produce results that are not based on all the facts will be overturned.

Appellant Objection 1: On Page 3 of the BTA Decision and Order document the

following statement is made: "We begin our review of this matter by noting that a party who

asserts a right to an increase or decrease in the value of real property has the burden to

prove the right to the value asserted. ... Consequently, it is incumbent upon an appellant

challenging the decision of the board of revision to come forward and offer evidence that

demonstrates its right to the value sought. ... Once an appellant has presented competent and

probative evidence of true value, other parties asserting a different value then have a

corresponding burden ofproviding sufficient evidence to rebut the appellant's evidence."

During the Hamilton County BOR hearing, the Hamilton County Auditor's

representative (Appellee) presented first and was given twenty minutes to make its case

without any questions/comments being permitted by the BOR from the Appellants. Three

minutes into the Appellant's presentation, the Hamilton County BOR chairperson interrupted

my wife, who was speaking, and stated the meeting was over and announced the BOR

decision. BOR process violated the Due Process Clause.

It is the appellant's understanding that the BOR hearing was recorded. The appellant

requests the BTA to provide to the Supreme Court of Ohio a copy of the recording of

appellant's BOR hearing.

2

The appellants submitted Exhibit 1 to the BTA at the appellant's BTA hearing. The

information provided in Exhibit 1 was not referenced in the BTA Decision and Order

document. The appellants have provided Exhibit 1 to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Appellant Objection 2: The attendees to the BTA hearing were the Appellants (Jim

and Myra Schloemer), a court reporter, and a BTA Attorney. The process for the Appellants

to input their information into the BTA record was to read excerpts from the Appellant's

presentation (Appellants Hearing: Exhibits i& 2) to the court reporter. It is interesting to

note that the first and only time that the appellant's presented their property valuation

assessment was to a BTA court reporter with no BTA Voting Member in the room to ask

questions or solicit clarification. BTA process violated the Due Process Clause.

Appellant Objection 3: The first paragraph of the BTA Decision document states: "A

merit hearing was held before the Hamilton County BOR, wherein the appellant property

owners appeared. Therefore, this matter is considered upon the transcript certified by the

BOR pursuant to R. C. 5717.01 (`S.T. ) and the hearing record (KR. )." The Appellant

had informed the BTA that the Appellant had no opportunity to make its case at the

BOR and did not accept the submittal of its case based on the Hamilton County BOR

compiled record (Attachment A). With the BTA use of the BOR Hearing Record in its

deliberations without the Appellant's verbal inputs and the exclusion of the appellant's BTA

hearing inputs, the BTA violated the Due Process Clause.

3

Appellant Objection 4: Detailed information is provided in Disputed BTA Action 3

below. The following items are defined in the Real Property Tax Rules:

5703-25-06 Equalization Procedures:

(A) ... The assessor shall likewise "take into consideration the location of the

property and the fair market value of similar properties in the same locality."

5703-25-07 Appraisals:

(D) In arriving at the estimate of true value the county auditor may consider the use of

any or all of the recognized three approaches to value:

(1) The market data approach - "The value of the property is estimated on the

basis of recent sales of comparable properties in the market area after

allowance for variation in features or conditions."

Disputed BTA Action 1: The BTA was notified by letter (see Attachment A) that the

appellant's BOR transcript certified by the BOR violated the Due Process Clause of full

appellant disclosure, and the Appellant's were prepared to present further evidence at the

BTA hearing and restated that "during the Hamilton County BOR hearing, the Hamilton

County Auditor's representative (Appellee) was given twenty minutes to make its case

without any questions/ comments being permitted from the Appellants.

Disputed BTA Action 2: BTA deprived the appellant of its constitutional Due

Process Clause rights by having no voting BTA member at the BTA hearing for receipt of

appellant's verbal input to counter the appellant's denied participation by the BOR at the

BOR hearing (see Attachment A).

4

Disputed BTA Action 3: In the Appellant's "Notice of Appeal from a Decision of a

County Board of Revision to the Board of Tax Appeals (dated 11/22/09)," the appellant

objected to several critical valuation factors not being adequately addressed by the Hamilton

County Auditor & BOR in their analyses. In the Appellant's BOR and BTA document

submittals, a comparison is made between the appellant's location and those properties used

by the Auditor for market comparative purposes. The appellant's property has the following

characteristics:

1) 50 yr old house on three acres which is located on the very busy Ohio Hwy 126 (Cross

County Hwy) with heavy car and truck traffic

2) Five minute walk to three bars, apartment buildings, Section 8 housing, and many

retail stores (Attachments Bl, B2, and 33).

The Auditors comparative properties (Attachment B3) are three acre lots with no houses

on quiet streets which, at the time, were ideal for land speculation. The BTA did not apply

and factor the Appellant's property location differences per 5703-25-06 & 5703-25-07 into its

assessment of the Appellees comparable sales.

It should be noted that all of the property information for the appellant's and other

properties used in the appellants' analyses were from the Hamilton County Auditor's Web site

and are provided in Exhibit 1. The auditor's market valuations for the recently sold properties

with houses were the same as their sell prices.

Summary from Appellant's Valuation Analyses (BTA Exhibit 1)

For comparative purposes the Appellant selected similar properties that are located on major

roads in Indian Hill and have houses and lands of similar sizes to the appellant's. Two

valuation methods were used and are presented on the following pages:

5

1. $460,500 -- Using Auditor's estimated "Mkt Land Value per Acre" and "Mkt

Improved Value per Finished Sq Ft" per Comparable Sale to Appellant's 3.399 Acres

& 2207 Finished Sq Ft. (Attachment C1)

2. $435,938 -- Multiple Regression Analysis using Sell Price (dependent variable) and

House Age, Finished Sq Footage, & Acres (three independent variables) to form the

data base for a sell price valuation model to be applied to the appellant's property

parameters. (Attachment C2)

All property data used in the analyses are from the Hamilton County's Auditor's web site

(dated 2009). A printout of the Auditor's Property Report is provided in the appellant's BTA

Hearing Exhibit 1 submittal for each of the properties used in the Appellant's market data

analyses. If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned.

James J. Schloemer & Myra A. Schloemer8075 Remington Rd. (H) 513-793-4543Cincinnati, Ohio 45242 (e-mail) jschloemer@fase.net

Attachments & Exhibit

Attachment A

Attachment Bl

Attachment B2

Attachment B3

Attachment C 1

Attachment C2

Exhibit 1

20 November 2010 Letter to BTA: Appellant's Explanation to BTA forRefusal to Accept BOR Compiled Record -BOR Due Process Violation

Appellant's Property on Major Ohio Highway 126

Appellant`s Property Valuation Factors not Considered by BOR / BTA

Appellant's Location Radically Different from Auditor's Comparables

Property Valuation Analysis: Mkt Land & Mkt Improved Adjustments

Property Valuation Analysis: Multiple Regression Analysis

Appellant's BTA Hearing Presentation: Exhibit 1

6

Attachment A: 20 November 2010 Letter to BTA

Ohio Board of Tax Appeals James SchloemerState Office Tower, 24th Floor 8075 Remington Rd.30 East Broad Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

Columbus, Ohio 43215-34114 20 November 2010

Dear BTA and Mathew H. Chafin,

References:1. Letter from Deborah J. Paterson (BTA) to James J. and Myra A Schloemer, dated 11/27/2009

In Re: Schloemer, James J. & Myra Ann vs. Hamilton County Board of RevisionBTA Case No.: 2009-V-3585 Hamilton County Case: 2008-068-5-203396

2. Letter from James J. Schloemer to Mathew H. Chafin (BTA), da:ted-02/14/103. Telephone call from Board of Tax Appeals to Myra Schloemer, date 02/17/104. Letter from James J. Schloemer to Mathew H. Chafin (BTA), dated 05/02/105. Letter from T. Scheve, Hatnilton County Prosecutors Office

Over the past year the undersigned and BTA personnel have exchanged information(Attachments 1--- 4) relative to the status of the hearing on BTA Case No. 2009-V-3585. InAttachment 5) Thomas J. Scheve of the Hamilton County Prosecutors Office proposes: "bothparties submit cases on the basis of the record compiled by the BOR and waive presentation offiwther evidence." We do not agree with Mr. Scheve's proposal for the reasons below.

During the Hamilton County BOR hearing, the Hamilton County Auditor's representative wasgiven twenty minutes to make its case without any questions/comments being permitted from theundersigned. Three minutes into the undersigned presentation, the Hamilton County BOR chairperson interrupted my wife, who was speaking, and announced its decision.

The undersigned are interested in making its case at an impartial BTA hearing. Consequently,

the undersigned request a BTA oral hearing do not accept the submittal of its case basedLded additional infoon the Hamilton County BOR compiled record (property owners nrovj

attached to appeal to BTAI and will be xtreDared to present further evidence, ifannropriate The undersi^ned are prenared to su[^part the BTA hearin^ in Columbus.

Thank you, James J. & Myra A. Schloemer (property owners

(jschioemer(cz^fiase.net) / Phone (513)-793-4543

7

00

F ^n a

^ E^'"

G 0^ ®

^

^ °

^ W 4A^ tD

`

ar u e°' em cn

to

>wOr

0O.

<

CL Ncro

z <

n

i t

^q1 .Or$

CD Q.Z1 N(p

,(jJC3'(6 fD Rfl fll N

^ r? O

flT ^. r N rsi r

Or ClN OR. N_ f7 ., tJt

'® o CCLni -6

2 L - XX N O

y N ^

^+,,^Ci ^.

O

40 G. C Os?

O^-

LL

N O

W OO. .Gt 0^.^ thNOr (J}»N ^j. m q^^ O

Qpi OpO .>o' t4 . fD ^ A._ 0

O O" 34D

^ ^m r V'3io ^, y a^ m^ Q.^ ^^-m o'^ taoo..O

^9. p

o sC=

^ If3 l7o m

QpR^ C ^p N.P (O '+ O-m'n^ ^m Q- 3 3.

w^ Rv WO + rn

^m y'5

^

@ C

;^^<a o ^o ^ ^Q

^^. M 'p w

N- ' ^. 0 0 - 0 G8

Ntn M o ^ Qo

J

fD 10U6 0

7S' ^. tJ^

$n t7

0 O77mO CO

R^^(U^i

7C1SLO

^N tntD

^ Vt'Lr SM'

... p.tl 43

- y 'Ln

i11

NQcy N S^^»-

^ t aof!)

o0^O

3^^`

R ^oJ C <j^ Cy.r N (p <

a ^ N

^^ N y

O

N R O w O

^ N n N^

.Q

.

d tf tD

^ O^

10)N% R

-

m <

^^"

'ti.'

O

C7 4' 3 •• ,c R01 • N a^'^ =; m

^r-i

R (O .°

go .T'.

m

mt J ) ZN

cn^ o 0Zo

o Zro.o

Z^ o^pmcn °

0ui y

a -4 oosa m ^v 3^ ^o^ ^o aoCl) v' °N°

. W O v+ o (Dn a oN

g]N :3

G

?.

®

O

^ OO-C

w^1N . N 0

3 r` N tD O

j'i Ap

^'tx O ^

><

Q = d fD 30 p^ S a Q. C

^ R

.

^

^C d O ri ^

3 CC(A

N p N O. fl11{fi r.

yN>

/W4}r vco3

N =

c(n V) <^

O 0 NT lq c

m ..R

I l +

M CLm

f19

'C3 0 m cn`ti

c;,m •N9 W^ te

Nto

a^c

^o o e nm`3^

;i; , ^r^ o.n

;, ^

^pN

a$ , o° =e dx a6ro ^{ *) ^

^.•^ m "^f! ^ f>

^f

O pA M Np

NOa ^m 7eC a6

O^,b '.. ^qC ', .

^ ^N

wb

w d6. T

a w R ^. ^x a

^^

dN

.^

^p ^i . fDI

N FP A 4 6 ^^' M ^p Cm Sm ^ro

Om q

_^ CJ

^s, 0 ^ b t 6 p S^

^^ °^k,3 3 vn 0 wb a°.o .^ a a °_ d - n d ^o..

N'^ 4.' . °^ .^. 0 a r m b y m^ -C C 3 '.ro^ o 3 24 p p m Qm ,..

J b p ro ' 7!s^ A-^

eer

3R

ti °° a

.a +e #A . . ,d

d A16 ®

9

r -1cn

p F

k N pa

W N P 1..

1. ]i ^t N W

^

= i N ""

9•,6

OV

C.i pl 9 y^ y_ ^S . 7

InM "^ u C =• K !^ b

ecro w

.;b ^

_ . a`

. _.--l._

^^^., .. ...., .._ _. __ ._.. __. ,^.. .._ ..... . ..._. _ _ ....., _.._ .. _.,. _°^

FN "? e

y P ye

.J p a

.'dJ

® 'V^g

^ ? O p ^d9. . ^64'i ' "

+A N x

n

W am

wW G

N

C a^

p A u^ eD o^ 3 oap

Ul , o

^m . pA VSm N

NO

•W m. W m

K

^ t0 O o b ° ^JA N Y..< t0 ° Q O ^ Q ' W m W .-v4 -1T-1 ° . A 2 bt O

o oN W y w 2 e .^.

W ^

3 sm

m c W N W ^^

^ if9m ^

N

^Oo

i+^r o

.^p

^'`w nW{v cmr' ma ° m +d +D . N_ y ^ ^ffi d

S3eaiW ^,^s: ,,r,

"". °' Q

O

^. A °

a ^ ^^

Ww n

.a Of ^`"^'e E m0

C N N°• e° ^

W + q O N m ^s cnm

NV

mo y

^

O W o o N AWW

^^ i'Jr 8{ r °

T'yN

w ggp^A rr+ +n o $ax a"k m '^'^ dm

N

:a!^ .xKnN { o

r

I++ ^"Y" W O7 T

N

Vi f.hN w'^,^`^w3^:'

'

o{rma i^^M(TSIT SZN

w ''° n' •'' U 3. G

3p q °

NOO ^

^o

dl Nt'+s^^N m ^ N m n O N p ^ O TC_• ^l

"J : eaOO Q o

wp qs

w^ u-! Fi^

md

m oa w

^^.-r

coz .^ e

n °

A m C7 a ° a

W

^

.a

j

W

i

i

Ol ^s N N r ^iJ C W Os 07 '^ p O

^ ' ° a

i

w^+ rm °w -°a ° e d e .{'i ° 0 3Rc ma ++ -e-

oc e =

to d

s

e ^ rn

o S;y q

W

w

O

1

Nx-^a® ^ o o d c

^n-i-C^waa'^o 333^°m Kpa50 m 1 m o^^^^^.°. xQ'=.w

a^ m m m°: d' w m

o a® m 3 m^

m ^aa o^

^

V O

mx A- W 5 m

W W < W (WN O(WT ^ Sp ^ NW w

pWp A ry - (Od O O p ry

01 O

a o0

0

^ W tT a

fli 0 (l^ N W_ A m

y^^p m m ' AAO 303Oe l0. _ NO A (D V ^ V (O

^ 3 O O O 3• O.,1,i

O OO W

0 3 N AW^ W a 0 M

W ^O < O N W NCl O SJ W^ O G OV W o ti W W^ mA 3

O a O O O A N Nm O O O Q O^

m o a

^ o

0^ m

N ^,^L A W W(VT 3_ ^S

W W ^ o ^ ^ WN 02-N W fWT(AT ON

N WO A

ao0

°w

() wma

9 V O O D^W SNomoo^ w ^ w 3

O = m O W J O^V C.0 0 0 0 . o^3 0 0.*m o o a

loa o

0

e!^..^

Appellant's BTA Hearing: Exhibit 1

DTE FOnn 4 (Rev. 01102)

ORCb797.0t

'a ^1 1 ^e^QY 3lVairie (Ptease Ptint}

(Names of other appeltees, if any) AppeOee(s). j BTA Case No. Z OOQ - C,^ -3 "J gi^s

READ IMPORTANT FILING INFORMATION ON BACK BEFORE COMPLET6NG THIS FORHfi

TheAppeflantappeals the deeision of the Board of Revision to the Board of Tax Appeals in the matter of the complaint

against the value for tax year Z. 6o5&. for the reat property or manufactured or mobile home descrlbed tielow. The

complaint was filed by:

Na

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF A COUNTYBOARD OF REVISION TO TliE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

<-a T g H:Fr.^ I^Aaav.s

AUDITOR AND TfiE BOARD OF REVISION

LS

The Board of Revision de

Ownets Name

Owner'ts Address

PARCEL OR REGISTRATION NUwdBER ADDRESS OF PROPERTY

The taxable values detennined by the County Auditor and the Board of Revision andthetaxableandmarket valuesclaimed byihe appellant forthe tax year are as follows (ifmore than one parcetor manufactured or mobile home,show total value of parcels or homes below and attach the values forthe individual parcels or homes as Exhibit D):

COUNTY AUDtTORSTAXABLE VALUE

13OAi2D OF REVIStON'STAXABLE VALUE

APPEIIANTS CfA1MEDTAXABLE VALUE

APPELI.ANTa CLA[MEDMARKET VALUE

LAND 3 iv c^v o taSS 3 i t t

BUILDING 3.: • G. 57 ... ^ iJ :. °Jtue^ ^ a b

TOTAL 2`" SO SZ I9 Q l 1,15 `iG>O E't.^-.

FOR ALL FUTURE NOTICES:

'BC3`1S` 1 J.Ntaiiing Address

C' ^' ^ t^4, ^'1.szCity State Zip

L513l "i.-13 -- q-15--13Phone Number

L5 t3^ ^1 9 3-;uk^'lFax Number ((f any)

-.i^. ^s ^ S 1-.(.o^,.r,Et J`2YfK rtn - S'r^f^'ervied'Pdnt Name and T"itle If Representative

t"t- ^ e L &rDate

^i Sz.i-1^..^EYL^CcC^c1ScEmaii Address (If any)

I

OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALSBTA Case: 2009-Q-3585

Hamilton County BOR Case: 2008-068-5-203396

This cause and matter came to be considered by the Board of Tax

Appeals upon a notice of appeal filed by James J. and Myra A. Schloemer

(Appellant) from a decision of the Hamilton County Board of Revision

("BOR"). In said decision, the BOR determined the taxable value of the

subject real property ("property") for tax year 2008.

This matter was submitted to the Board of Tax Appeals upon the

notice of appeal, the statutory transcript certified to this board ("S.T.") and

the record of the hearing held before this board. The Appellant requests that

the record of the hearing be played at the BTA hearing.

The subject property is located in the 068 taxing district and is

identified on the auditor's records as parcel number 619-0190-0069-00. The

Hamilton County Auditor defmed the taxable value of the subject property

for tax year 2008 to be as follows:

TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUELand $ 683,470 $ 239,210Building $ 85,830 $ 30,040Total $ 769,300 $ 269,250

After considering the information presented at the hearing by the Auditor's

Office and allowing only a few minutes of input from the Appellant, the

BOR decreased the subject property's value as follows:

TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUELand $ 539,170 $ 188,710Building $ 85,830 $ 30,040Total $ 625,000 $ 218,750

2

In the notice of appeal filed with the BOR, the appellant asks that the subject

property's true value be lowered to $460,500, with a corresponding taxable

value of $161,175.

From the record of the hearin2 held before this board, it can be

determined that the BOR prevented the appellant from making its case.

The auditor's office made its case irst leaving no time for the appellant.

Consequently, the appellant requested a BTA oral hearing to make its

case.

It is understood that a party who asserts a right to an increase or

decrease in the value of real property has the burden to prove the right to the

value asserted. ClevelandBd. ofEdn v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd ofRevision

(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 336; Crow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. OfRevision (1990),

50 Ohio St.3d 55. Consequently, it is incumbent upon an appellant

challenging the decision of a board of revision to come forward and offer

evidence which demonstrates its right to the value sought. Cleveland Brd. Of

Edn., supra; Springfield Local Bd. Of Edn. v. Summit City, Bd. of Revision

(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 493. Once an appellant has presented competent and

probative evidence of value, other parties asserting a different value then

have a corresponding burden of providing sufficient evidence to rebut the

appellant's evidence. Springfield Local Bd, of Edn., supra; Mentor Exempted

Village Bd. of Edn., supra.

The Ohio Supreme Court has consistently held that the best evidence

of true value of real property is an actual, recent, arm's-length sale. See e.g.,

Berea City Scholl Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106

Ohio st.3d 269; Worthington City schools Bd. ofEdn. v. Franklin Cty Bd.

3

ofRevision (2009), 124 Ohio St.3d 27 at 32. Absent a recent sale, as in this

current case, true value in money can be calculated by any of three

alternative methods provided for Ohio Adm. Code 5703-25-07: 1) the

market data approach, which compares recent sales of comparable

properties, 2) the income approach, which capitalizes the net income

attributable to the property, and 3) the cost approach, which depreciates the

improvements to the land and then adds them to the land value. While an

owner is entitled to provide an opinion of his property's value, to be

considered probative such anopinion must be supported with reliable

tangible evidence of a property's value. Smith v. Padgett (1987), 32 Ohio

St.3d 344; see also, Amsdell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofRevision (1994), 69

Ohio St.3d 572.

The Appellant's analysis for the "true value in money" of property uses "the

market data" approach, which compares recent sales of comparable

properties" per the following Real Property Tax 5703-25 sections:

Definitions (-05), Equalization Procedures (-06), and Appraisals (-07).

Final Tax Rules - Ohio Administrative Code 5703

http://tax.ohio. crov/divisions/lepal/rules/final/5703 25/index.stm

Real Property Tax Rules: Final: 5703-25

5703-25-05 Definitians

As used in rules 5703-25-05 to 5703-25-17 of the Administrative Code:

(A) "True value in money" or "true value" means one of the following:

(1) The fair market value or current market value ofproperty and is the

price at which property should change hands on the open market between a

willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion tobuy or to sell and both having a knowledge of all the relevant facts.

4

(C) "Computer assisted appraisal systems"- A method in which the value ofa property is derived by any or all of the following computerizedprocedures:

(1) Multiple regression analysis using sales to form the data base forvaluation models to be applied to similar properties within the county.

(3) Computerized market data approach where a subject property is valuedby adjusting comparable sales to subject by adjustments based onregression or other analyses.

5703-25-06 Egualization prucedures

(A) ... The assessor shall likewise "take into consideration the location of

the property and tlie fair market value of sittiilar properties in the same

locality. "

5703-25-07 Appraisals

(D) In arriving at the estimate of true value the county auditor may considerthe use of any or all of the recognized three approaches to value:(1) The market data approach - "The value of the property is estimated on

the basis of recent sales of comparableproperties in the market area afterallowance for variation in features or conditions."

Appellant's Valuation Analyses

For comparative purposes similar properties were selected that are located

on major roads in Indian Hill and have houses and lands of similar sizes to

the appellant's. Two valuation methods were used and are presented on the

following pages:

1. $460,500 -- Using Auditor's estimated "Mkt Land Value per Acre"

and "Mkt Improved Value per Finished Sq Ft" per Comparable Sale

to Appellant's 3.399 Acres & 2207 Finished Sq Ft.

2. $435,938 -- Multiple Regression Analysis using Sell Price

(dependent variable) and House Age, Finished Sq Footage, & Acres

(three independent variables) to form the data base for a sell price

valuation model to be applied to the appellant's property parameters.

5

All property data used in the analyses are from the Hamilton County's

Auditor's web site (dated 2009). An Auditor's Property Report is provided

for each of the properties used in the market data analyses.

6

C w m fW N NCD

' ^e O m.

^ m..• H 'If i K Cl C1 ^" ° N

'a

's9 0

^

9O O N m

<Y b N

ib 'J^ Q '

id m n ^ w 1 m w O

SO n , . fi^Y

Ci ^^ C O C"'m6 C^C .,C C N Y 6m

T w K ^' .^A^-a SPA

^

{6 IA ^ y a .z:.,,jH o m 4m mo o

m m 9 W ^ o a a a,,N^

No ^

T<^^ °^ r^ ^ +c N^" "q 3 < m y ^ N b

7° 4 ° ~ S N C V Sw ^.

^ O q C ^ q ' m^

.

^...S 40 C

'i 9 ' N ^ 6 4' ^ me t Q . '-e6 ^

M y^ y

p -. y Om . .a

° nN , ?ym m ow

^C

m ^" 3+ °^ o m "^fGc.i

IDB

^m ,.aC

w

Lad ..,:. p_ . - __ ..- __ _.. . . . ... ._ _. ._,.....

A O ^.^m :

^, ^ ^1.f1

U°i'3^ ^

^

^iAK^•H

^^

^N

N

w

_^

mOA

^CN

w m ^ G 4 eS® da . w ^ o o p -.M1

o,(O `N

"'6w w 6J

^ '4 -° O Y

e ^ 9

W

N ..^ tw ^ -- w o o

1

y} .' 9^. " Fr. O

40 ^ 7 W ^'-th

"8

m

S

^ W w N w +^

N

w fYY

ITVi

^`.'

13 Y^V

WOO°

A^J

3^

A- '92J

m^^

w a ta'iim^+l $Ow^w "a+ m

°^°N

''tll4

ru t^op -^

m.?..N.

'^

r--+o

a^o

o^°

wiN3

sB

^`^'^'

o m '°mr ',°,•v` ^

^p , eK,« ee o. °^ , ,.

y

J"r'. x s^

w

W

=

O

i.

O

s

N a. (,J . fA tA N O EA '+ , nO ^ 4C L

IA$ ^.y^'^.. .t.

W

tA O N^' ^'m^^- ;cn cnNi, mm ^

mo

NV m wo

SJ

o ^fm4w

^in

-rtwicn

WO

44r

P3

yi',. 00lf^

V O O] p ,^n r .^

` „^p^

--6m

Oo°ww

9y 4ow

N ` " 3 a^ 4 ° ^O

^

nq^'.,'nfOiI

w O'a ,a Yob

o m^

^ ^ i-v¢

s^^D

Q,fL Y A

SO :i'I^i n.1 o a ^eo o

^` ^

-1 l0JVc^t-a m

^ N do

N W0

.11(o

pm

^ sam 'r.

^'utin

^3 z,:: ^,r7 '^'

d e4II +zw"; u'^

!

^

i' ® !7 w ai 7

W ^ w ; ° V ^ N e a~i a p nW . tlii w mf`Dt N Cf w

A Ot 00 ii ^ W'. W ^+ i w V ° 6 ^ f4A O V ^ ° ry

O ^O Oi A^:6 O, 4

;° O^. o O 4 4 O O

w ,Ylli t p °> ^

J

Attachment 1. 8770 Indian Hill Rd

Property Repo

Par"£ AE3f1r`esS

Tax @tst

wrtar Sat#ormaB#ctn46-4Q19 nt 9aar,stinnwa

ai

ailsd`;ura 4re,dtfi

ed FroperA,rPBovs Gerrsstfuck:ionForetHosutet1thw R.s"°o9ctuex'tsFP4P16S f^t.# ot Parccis

0.5iRfit4%IpDtwflH aC`.'£:6iPT

tRCtox QrderE"c,rc*<+k IC

sGh9Slt Mt

;z aSl:^:M FV"H

"1 fteioazeia3FtnrCall U6 4 4 3t trsconmcAti ua.A ^ ' S F 4: " f " 4 + 8 ^?14...

a F Y r ^°hs L_Pr ^ N 11?3 :''.qVC

^h9! VAbl,t•'^, A 'ds¢r+.',€";:fi.

O Type 3:? L't>',Lfi`EOV:EiJ i's";3=r.Ytt'>Sate Aasrestrnt

Us* CodeStb'Bt3GradeYaar Pul.tSturY Heigltto-otal Rocacnsi}' cr4 bezitouzm

F^a®tsgsa ? ; ^.f3 •Fus[siied Squaret°ersk Floor Ata,z 1246Upper Ftoor Area 10kn

§,a 9R<$ a's&

o„E SPtt:;[p v^i ity Ft;rrlt^

Paapt:tiy Int^rsrctatin^

^?Fi.{yEJE

Na€ce'ti3er I'5.",Laand Valato s:t#`r

YOt${ T.IF ValasnA.bstedb`a€ursEMRIFOpi vdZlbrac:rzTaixes Paid

v}s# Tota3 Yaltm i E@=-:,ii5SM ltnpr VaIsaa 1?^^^,fR;C;teev 9aalu

Resident:ia9

EZtevfof Wall fyp9Fs.rni3ggic.>HeatlrtgAir Gcrn?iitivniaagF"rrePlaeefstHalf BathroornFsi19 Baahr®canzBasrrment'Uarage - Car CHaPI Story FFossr AreaF€nished B^sement

Improvements

s;d$^'Tr..4`VW,.rFLq:°8)^r.

69.2PRI"7;. ; #'n c. , f-ta^.t;:i. rt^

P9

1-^;slt f_i.^Sx,.Fl'icsFF

*^`rs:ri'ssii

MC's+t4¢,tr^avr„ir1„4+q'^rr^ifVd }„ tC,r:^l

'5- *=Qt#ARr f'C'FrKy4 4dF?I Id11iF r.[:T

Transfer

it€S,.Jf} u eN,S rw, i;CFRFVryKxr.^ . {, .rJ? fja....'31'l3iqs r

117'+t..'Y13

ii^. 2QfCaf`1

Value Historybrta,m„itenxmr"s;:w T,a:'sd

105 r.-:3Li G•i,.'#^SK: (:ap„is?se^, a `J^i^n a-f ^c7sU w,epKrr ,:z^;,

x 22 IC+F '^e7 i,. ^+5 ,sa ^. , t6 , . ctb ..-.. , . , . , aaa .....

9

Attachment 2. 4384 Miami Rd

&S. IProperty ^^portPaztefr ^.3--ttk.

Xax pist:i5 EPRi^d2 %i v,ZIC

a4 Rewia3on;d

tadPurA PraapOrt

daaw GorcstraeFamclesueeL)t3ter AssA>t,cnattftFront Ft,4o.s F?aaeel5Deed TypeSaIe &mcrt,rnt

i3saa Code$dyleGradeXeas t3kliPtStory Y+takgfutYattel R"ms

ResidentialExtersar 4M1Pati type 1=t',rn^t'_air4,rtBaepSTypat t-iel 6ds^+A-aei9ieatiarg &awAii'Ctaird'aktiaas&f'rg i^^:ra£rd'€FirePsaee(s3 ^Hw( 8Yt17r9QmR 3.FHFtF,itkra°ot.+rra9 PBasemomi Garage Car C..apae:aty rifta.PP Story Mcrr,•r A.rea

F€rrisiaedBaeonrcwet tif

t€trdex OrderFirtp4 ic'3

i"SCtY€::,

GO&9'veyIITiCe ADeedhumbca84tRct 4aq4''lal+ae

4Wttmpr4raiu@Mkt 7ratal Value

1610,56

.:34, 7 t.+a7Tata! 77F Valuc 0Abatod'-fa#ve 0

4 ^_T s?3l., 'F`F:-'frE.s4t Ifre 15

Tacuv3 Paf+i S4., ^'s`t3

# of 6" +`drerns 4Finished 5yuare FnrrfaeyO 14SC' 'kFirst Floor Araa 224J2Upper Flpnr Araa Sk 1=>';

Improvements

PR-1 .*"*. r 3 f-:amz: ODn"z't7r 1 F*:5.`:t°.f' C2;.°era1't+.°Fwh ^r.2rnr. s.?pe:*t

eircef m51o 217

LTMD,172

P3a,»=; -rr n:r_¢atstA.R; ;=FkT

^:=i=JARE FYaF;'tiFJJLFY'i

Rd

^°„a '_'^T£^^'t0ta6"194 i7^"^a

I Willson price ,

$14t,81tY$4n9CiQ

^ YaLs

MM

$141,61#liS4;934

Mkt N^ yatve$224:47Q

10

Attachment Z. 4384 Miami Rd (cont'd)

Va(ue HistoryLand se°a^rxi.rxa>va..rncae^^

*a5&".,aJ??' A °"s'71,534 A%

x.^'s^.h?^' S'7?47 ,7^3JG ^S

y^b

01-°y'141 :4.fi=<2^sy.`>F-^; ^r[5<° s . cr,._ .xa3

T*W.S as,ssessYxssnk R»a4r:.rsn$: kS::zr,^-ai: L¢ut^rtt^ r.r ^=3a aakv^ ^4^c+^r:YeT.`i-;^?a

!.YS.e5:C e€s .c,ry^ r x£1 ^rk;.3,z{:,*,..atazT's

SR,^45+„tfrN'?

$.iP+[.`Y;e

s; 49,40)

Ci F ya.:? '9..°'t#6stev^

11

Attachment 3: 8940 Indian Ridge Ln

Dw3't-saps°s'ty Re

un#y Andi ts$r=,,,-.

Parct?t ,'A aSddsess5:14- C-342 ''C*r wCF S9,$0 nt'JO$i+l.'b FIL.Li k 3.=':

Til%MYat

,?:^ t32U -_IbCEcAFr r-twtxry083

f?u`:naex ezsPprm48ion

opal; 94&6CiiS'ut Lneoraect[:JT"(^=YR6 'a-kPA3:f`: Yfe.fii449 6P{'tk„,PS NiL`?V'=Y i'e.. .. . rt, C:"3r ^.5 aT 9r"s.# 47S',

Baard crfNumeseearJ2.S..a,o l "atacta6lt9x Cred$dDdvidt4 Pt"'otaer4yNew CmsteueticsnFa?sd4G1oc6(F'v'C747ter AssessmentsFfont Fi:# oi F*areetsOeed Type 17 ;8fioBo Asnc,urwz

iY a1 GedtroansFfaciskmd Square Fora9age 32 i 1^FSrst FlarsrAraa ..t7i 1Upp+sr Faar Ar+sa €5

P{;S. FG,117tr - `.}xre¢x

S'R`I sTcvejo hia^:;,ts;ar3i

20 f3 r -ur..+^ [m.tr^iar^;

CSCi 41i17aSV a*'<¢Lj

a Pk3tiiF-'t+kR1 ?L drx`L2Ma71 lnTdatttMbarmCslt'>#df If irtccsrrecB..# t`N;r:M1i :w iP.Tff- 'F,

01€5GC LAe`k's .2.;:4_i71e I.i?R

L$C1Rf CI$e_ ri ^i; .^^SStt^'I r]4.^,;k€ A4y9'^

^rd3 jbEi2^/ 'i f Sti743FFSt^.^1t

tiCF" L..rS m wH::"',Ad RxS..:=

^

tt

Ex"rpDt Vaiuegier"TaxesPald S2fjA56, e:-!8

Index orziatrPaf i:e1 7C,

3°tstal'fitF WatucAtsawd Yafuc

a

ResidentialF5t'te6ve y1'S1l 'Pg.pe8srnt TYPRF^afin}.v:tr Ctrrrd sC4ori4ngFireaQtact+(s)!#a#E 6at4sraarnsFuCI 88t#arasarnsBa:,.emen? Ciarage .. C:a.r CatiiaEt 91" Fluor ArcaFieeisMred 94sornant

Improvements

o-dT^`f+^b ++i`^^ "^TE«C^. 4.ff'+^5^?f+ :N :AdS"u.NP.''.^ f: '^^.

ar"h^tz ..

Tqr.;ad =`4.s;ar^srxr'+n:Rrn,r^ng-9's.'a?+yi11 . ,Le oa4 604... !e_ tres'c1 *ae

1.,'u` f,ju CfF AitP aeR1 `-^tk5^`r:3°.itr•:fi

a,7asnj.•_ ^.JuM¢r,9sar;e

12

Regression Statistics (Minitab)

Regression Analysis

T3ge regressa,on equation isSP - - 2527283 + 50848 Age + 1434 FinisBied Sq Ft - E07284 Acres

6T Coet

Constant -2527283Age 50E48.1

FS:aished 1433.97Feczes -807284

g = *

.Anali?s3s of yar3ance

StDev0

0.00.00

0

Source DF SS ILS F PH xRegression 3 10097930700 3365976900

Res:ietuai Error 0

Total 3 10097930700

SourceAgeFinishedAcres

DF Seq SS1 6508433941 21947507201 7252336586

Age Finished Sq Ft Acres SP

ci ° C2 _c3 C4

44 2335 319314 3450 3 21748 3271 5.03149 2832^ 4.212 1

485000534760.5425006250001

The appellant has applied the processes defined in Ohio Administrative

Code 5703-25-05, -06, and -07 to calculate the 2008 total value of the

Appellant's property to be $460,500. In a "multiple regression analysis

using sales to form the data base for valuation models to be applied to

similar properties," the 2008 value of the Appellant's property is $435,938.

Utilizing the Real Property Tax rules in the calculation of total property

value has resulted in very good agreement between the two calculation

methods.

18

OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

James J. & Myra Ann Schloemer,

Appellants,vs.

Hamilton County Board of Revision andthe Hamilton County Auditor,

Appellees.

APPEARANCES:

CASE NO. 2009-Y-3585

(R .F.,AI. PROPERTY TAX)

DECISION AND ORDER

For the Appellants - James J. & Myra Ann Schloemer, pro se8075 Remington RoadCincinnati, Ohio 45242-7225

For the County - Joseph T. DetersAppellees Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney

Thomas J. ScheveAssistant Prosecuting Attomey230 East Ninth Street, Suite 4000Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2151

Entered MAY 0 8 2012

Ms. Margulies, Mr. Johrendt, and Mr. Williamson concur.

Appellants filed the present appeal challenging a decision issued by the

Hamilton County Board of Revision ("BOR") retaining the values assigned to the

subject property, i.e., parcel number 619-0190-0069-00, by the Hamilton County

Auditor for ad valorem tax purposes for tax year 2008. A merit hearing was held

before this board, wherein the appellant property owners appeared. Therefore, this

matter is considered upon the transcript certified by the BOR pursuant to R. C.

5717.01 ("S.T.") and the hearing record ("H.R.").

The true and taxable values of the subject property for tax year 2008, as

determined by the auditor, are as follows:

TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUELand $683,470 $239,210Building $ 85,830 $ 30,040Total $769,300 $269,250

The property owners filed the original decrease complaint with the BOR

seeking a reduction in value for the subject property to $460,499. S. T., Ex. I. No

countercomplaint was filed.

At the BOR hearing, the property owners appeared and presented

supporting evidence, including a list of sales for properties that they considered similar

to the subject property. The appellants made adjustments to these sales based on

acreage and square footage of each property. The appellants also compared the listed

sales to the values at which each was assessed by the auditor for tax year 2008. After

averaging the adjustments for these sales, appellants proposed a reduction to $460,499.

William Grauvogel, an appraiser representing the auditor, testified as to

his opinion of value and presented a list of sales in the subject's area along with a

reporti prepared by Susan L. Spoon, another certified appraiser in the auditor's office.

S.T., Exs. 1 and 3. Mr. Grrauvogel discussed Ms. Spoon's report, noting that based on

recent sales in the area, most of the subject's value is in the land rather than the house.

' Mr. Grauvogel submitted a restricted use appraisal report that was prepared by Susan L. Spoon, acertified appraiser for the auditor's office, but Ms. Spoon did not appear or testify at the hearing beforethe BOR. Mr. Grauvogel discussed Ms. Spoon's report, reviewing the sales on which she based heropinion, and recommended that the BOR find that the property's value was $625,000. Therefore,although Ms. Spoon did not testify at the hearing, Mr. Crrauvogel's testimony was sufficient tocorroborate the matters set forth in the report and that it contains sufficient indicia of reliability. SeePlain Local Schools Bd. of Ek v. Franklin Cty. Bd of Revision, 130 Ohio St.3d 230, 2011-Ohio-

3362.

2

S.T., Digital Hearing Recording. Additionally, lYlr. Grauvogel criticized the sales that

Mr. Schloemer considered comparable to the subject and used in his analyses. Id.

After the hearing, the board of revision decreased the total true value of the

subject property, but not to the amount requested by the property owners. Based on

the recommendation from the auditor's office, the BOR determined that the values of

the subject property are as follows:

TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUELand $539,170 $188,710Building $ 85,830 $ 30,040Total $625,000 $218,750

The property owners have challenged the BOR's findings to this board,

contending that the auditor did not address several factors when determining the value

of the subject property. In their notice of appeal, the property owners allege that the

correct total true value for the subject parcel is $460,500.

We begin our review of this matter by noting that a party who asserts a

right to an increase or decrease in the value of real property has the burden to prove

the right to the value asserted. Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 336; Crow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1990), 50 Ohio

St.3d 55; Mentor Exempted Village Bd. ofEdn. v. Lake Cty. Bd. ofRevision (1988), 37

Ohio St.3d 318. Consequently, it is incumbent upon an appellant challenging the

decision of a board of revision to come forward and offer evidence that demonstrates

its right to the value sought. Cleveland BcZ of Edn., supra; Springfield Local Bd of

Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. ofRevision (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 493. Once an appellant has

presented competent and probative evidence of true value, other parties asserting a

3

different value then have a corresponding burden of providing sufficient evidence to

rebut the appellant's evidence. Springfield Local Bd. of Edn., supra. Accordingly, this

board must proceed to examine the available record and to determine value based on

the evidence before it. Coventry Towers, Inc. v. Strongsville (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d

120; Clark v. Glander (1949), 151 Ohio St. 229. In doing so, we determine the weight

and credibility to be accorded to the evidence presented. Cardinal Fed. S. & L. Assn,

v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofRevision (1975), 44 Ohio St.3d 13.

When determining value, it has long been held by the Supreme Court

that "the best evidence of `true value in money' of real property is an actual, recent

sale of the property in an arm's-length transaction." Conalco v. Bd. of Revision

(1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 129. See, also, Berea City School Dist. Bd. ofEdn. v. Cuyahoga

Cty. Bd. ofRevision, 106 Ohio St.3d 269, 2005-Ohio-4979. Absent a recent sale, as in

the instant case, true value in money can be calculated by applying any of the three

alternative methods provided for in Ohio Adm. Cod 5703-25-07: 1) the market data

approach, which compares recent sales of comparable properties, 2) the income

approach, which capitalizes the net income attributable to the property, and 3) the cost

approach, which depreciates the improvements to the land and then adds them to the

land value.

Appellants apparently attempted to offer infonnation regarding the

market data approach. In support of their claim that the subject property has been

overvalued, the appellants provided an analysis of properties that they consider

comparable to the subject. The appellants included a spreadsheet that compared

4

several sales to the assessed values as determined by the auditor for tax year 2008. H.

R. at 9; Appellants' Ex. 1. The appellants also provided a comparison of the subject

property to those sales using a regression analysis to make adjustments to the sale

price based on age of the house, the fmished square footage of the house, and the

acreage of the property. H.R. at 7-13; Appellants' Ex. 1.

We acknowledge that this type of data is commonly relied upon by

appraisers to develop an opinion of value for residential properties, though the mere

occurrence of these sales is not sufficient support for the appellants' proposed

reduction of value. Not only must this board be satisfied regarding the reliability of

such sales, i.e., that they are actual, arm's-length2 transactions, but we must also be

able to discern the similarity of such properties to the one under consideration and

what adjustments, if any, are warranted to account for perceived differences. See

Speca v. Montgomery Cty. Ba of Revision (Mar. 25, 2008), BTA No. 2006-K-2144,

unreported.

We recognize that the appellants attempted to make adjustments to the sales

using a regression analysis to account for variations in the size and age of the

properties. Additionally, "Ohio law has long recognized that an owner of either real or

personal property is, by virtue of such ownership, competent to testify to the market

Z It was noted at the hearing before the BOR that two of the sales that the appellants used to determinetheir opinion of value were after a foreclosure. S.T., Digital Hearing Recording. However, thespecific circumstances of the sales were not presented. While it is true that the forced sale of aproperty through a foreclosure action is not proper evidence of value, this board has previously foundsales from banks following foreclosure to be competent evidence of value. Compare Dublin Senior

Community, L.P. v. Franklin Cty. Bd of Revision (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 455, with Foster v

Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision (Mar. 16, 2010), BTA No. 2008-K-937, unreported. As the recorddoes not clarify whether the relevant sales were arm's length in character, we will not rely on the salesas competent evidence of the subject property's value.

5

value of the property." Smith v. Padgett ( 1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 344, 347. However, it

is equally clear that "[w]hile an owner may testify as to the value of his or her

property, there is no requirement that the finder of fact accept that value as the true

value of the property." WJJK Investments, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd. ofRevision (1996),

76 Ohio St.3d 29, 32. Compare, e.g., Evid. R. 701. Further, we note that the appellants

are not appraisers by trade, yet the opinions that they expressed about the adjustments

made to the sales that they presented as comparable to the subject were in the nature of

an expert's opinion. We find nothing in the record to demonstrate appellants'

knowledge regarding real estate valuation or to qualify them as experts. Accordingly,

we find that while the appellants may be competent to offer an opinion as to the value

of their own property, their testimony must also be probative and credible. See Witt

Co. v Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 155; Cardinal Fed.

Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. ofRevision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13.

Further, the comparison of these sales to valuations by the auditor does

notprovide sufficiently probative evidence to support the appellants' opinion of value.

The Supreme Court has found that "[m]erely showing that two parcels of property

have different values without more does not establish that the tax authorities valued

the properties in a different manner." WJJK Investments, Inc. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of

Revision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 29, at 31.

Having found no evidentiary support for the valuation sought by the

appellants, we now consider the BOR's valuation. Upon review of the record, it is

apparent that the BOR relied upon Ms. Spoon's report in conjunction with Mr.

6

Grauvogel's testimony as a basis for the change in valuation. Ms. Spoon prepared her

opinion of value as of January 1, 2008, based on sales of residential property of

similar acreage with a house that had been torn down after purchase. S.T., Digital

Hearing Recording, Ex. 1. Mr. Grauvogel discussed the properties that Ms. Spoon

used in her report and asserted that they indicate that the house may be a negative

value of the property itsel£ S.T., Digital Hearing Recording. Mr. Grauvogel

recommended that the value of the subject property be reduced to $625,000, based on

the price per acre of the subject property. Id. The BOR agreed with this analysis,

noting that Ms. Spoon's opinion was based on the lowest per-acre value for the sales

that she considered to be "land only." Id.

The appellants provided this board with a discussion of the comparable

properties that were relied upon by the BOR to determine the value. of the subject

property. Appellants' Ex. 2. While we are sympathetic to the appellants' perception

that the BOR did not thoroughly review the informarion they had prepared for their

complaint, they have not provided this board with any competent and probative

evidence of value which would rebut Mr. Grauvogel's conclusion.

Based upon the record before us, we find that the BOR based its

decision on competent and probative evidence of value, which supports the BOR's

determination of value. We recognize that the appellants feel that there are some

differences between the comparables in Ms. Spoon's report and the subject property.

However, a review of the evidence before this board compels us to find the county

7

appraisers' opinion of value in this instance is the best evidence of value for the

subject property on January 1, 2008.

Accordingly, the Board of Tax Appeals fmds and determines that the

true and taxable values of the subject property as of the tax lien date in issue, i.e.,

January 1, 2008, are as follows:

TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUELand $539,170 $188,710

Building $ 85,830 $ 30,040Total $625,000 $218,750

The Auditor of Hamilton County is hereby ordered to cause the county

records to reflect the value determined herein for the subject real property and to

assess the same in accordance therewith as provided by law.

I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true andcomplete copy of the action taken by theBoard of Tax Appeals of the State of Ohioand entered upon its journal this day, withrespect to the captione^. matter..

Sally F. Van,Meter, Board Secretary

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The Appellants, James J. & Myra A. Schloemer, hereby certify that on May 23,

2012, served copies of our

"Tax Appeal to Supreme Court of OhioOhio BTA Case No. 2009-Y-3585

andHamilton County BOR Ref. No. 2008-068-5-203396-RG"

on the following parties by way of U.S. Mail.

Appellees:

Ohio BTA:Chairperson Pamela MarguliesOhio Board of Tax Appeals30 East Broad Street, 24`h FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215

Hamilton County Board of RevisionRobert A. GoeringHamilton County Board of RevisionCounty Administration Building, Room 304138 East Court StreetCincinnati, Ohio 45202

Hamilton County AuditorDusty RhodesHamilton County Auditor138 E Court St, Ste 304a,Cincinnati, OH 45202-1215

Date: 5 b-3 11 2

es J. SchIMmer Myra FtSchloemer8075 Remington Rd Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-7225

Copy: Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine,30 E. Broad St., 14th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215

VEDMAY252012

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO