may 2 2 xoiz 2NMAY22 FM 3:54 (1r COURT SUPREME COURT OF Hf FIlEO/RECEIVEU BOARD i^ TAX A P"r'EA(-5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
|
|
- Ruby Douglas
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Katarina & Ivica Sapina, vs. Appellants, FIlEO/RECEIVEU BOARD i^ TAX A P"r'EA(-5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2NMAY22 FM 3:54 Case No. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer, Euclid City Schools Board of Education, and the Tax Commissioner of the State of Ohio, Appellees. Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals BTA Case Nos K-667 and 2009-K-816 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF KATERINA & IVICA SAPINA J. Kieran Jennings ( ) Counsel of Record Victor V. Anselmo ( ) Jason P. Lindholm( ) Siegel Siegel Johnson & Jennings Co. LPA Science Park Drive, Suite 210 Cleveland, OH (216) Counsel for Appellant Katarina & Ivica Sapina Saundra Curtis-Patrick ( ) Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecutor Courts Tower - Eighth Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH (216) Counsel for Appellees Cuyahoga County Board of Revision and Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer Michael Stinn ( ) Britton, Smith, Peters & Kalail Co. L.P.A. 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH (216) Counsel for Appellee Euclid City School District Board of Education Michael DeWine ( ) Ohio Attorney General 30 East Broad Street, 17'' Floor Columbus, OH (614) Counsel for Appellee Joseph Testa, Tax Conunissioner of-ohio ED may 2 2 xoiz CttR@4 (1r COURT SUPREME COURT OF Hf
2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Katarina & Ivica Sapina, Appellants, Case No. vs. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, ) Appeal from the Ohio Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer, Euclid ) Board of Tax Appeals City Schools Board of Education, and the Tax Commissioner of the State of Ohio, Appellees. ) BTA Case Nos K-667 and 2009-K-816 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF KATERINA & IVICA SAPINA Appellants, Katarina & Ivica Sapina, hereby give notice of an appeal as of right, pursuant to R.C , to the Supreme Court of Ohio, from a Decision and Order of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, journalized in case numbers 2009-K-667 and 2009-K- 816, which was decided on Apri124, A true copy of the Decision and Order of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals being appealed is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. The appellant complains of the following errors in the Decision and Order of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals: ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1: The Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully, and abused its discretion, when it improperly found that the Appellees satisfied the initial presumption accorded the conveyance fee statement, a document not in the record. 1
3 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2: The Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully, and abused its discretion, by adopting a valuation based upon a conveyance fee statement which was not in the record, when credible evidence before the Board of Tax Appeals demonstrated that the conveyance fee statement was erroneous. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3: The Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully, and abused its discretion, by neglecting to value the fee simple estate of the real property at issue in the appeal as if unencumbered, in contravention of established case law. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4: The Decision and Order of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable, unlawful, and arbitrary because the Board of Tax Appeals erroneously and unjustifiably relied upon a transfer price to value the subject property when competent and probative evidence was introduced to establish that the transfer price reflected non-real estate items, and not the fair market value of the real property, in contravention of R.C ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5: The Decision and Order of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable, unlawful and arbitrary because the Board of Tax Appeals erroneously and unjustifiably placed the burden of proof upon the Property Owner to rebut evidence not properly in the record. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6: The Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully, and abused its discretion when it assigned a wholly unreasonable burden of proof to the Appellants to prove which non-real estate items were included in the transfer price. The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals required "unequivocal" proof, contrary to the standard burden of proof in administrative and civil matters. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 7: The Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully, and abused its discretion, by manifestly refusing to consider or acknowledge the expert testimony of Mr. Richard Linhart, which supported the Taxpayer's arguments and evidence that rebutted the use of the sale price. 2
4 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 8: The Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully, and abused its discretion, by refusing to place the appropriate weight on the testimony of Ms. Katarina Sapina, which rebutted the use of the sale price, and which the Board of Tax Appeals found to be credible. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 9: The Board of Tax Appeals acted unreasonably and unlawfully, and abused its discretion, by utilizing a total transfer price as the true value of the real estate, when the entirety of the credible and probative evidence in the record demonstrated that the recorded transfer price included the sale of a business and other non-real estate items. Appellants request that the Court reverse the unreasonable and unlawful decision of the Board of Tax Appeals. Respectfully submitted, ngs ( ) Counsel of Record VVor V. nselmo ( ) J son P. indholm ( ) Siegel, Siegel, Johnson & Jennings Co., LPA Science Park Drive, Suite 210 Cleveland, OH (216) COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS KATARINA & IVICA SAPINA 3
5 PROOF OF SERVICE UPON OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS This is to certify that the Notice of Appeal of Katarina & Ivica Sapina was filed with the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, State Office Tower, 24th Floor, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio as evidenced by its date stamp as set forth hereon. J. ran ings ( ) Counsel of Record V ^ tor V nselmo ( ) J son P. indholm ( ) iegel, Siegel, Johnson & Jennings Co., LPA Science Park Drive, Suite 210 Cleveland, OH (216) COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS KATARINA & IVICA SAPINA 4
6 CERTIFICAT OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this c-v day of May 2012, a copy of the Notice of Appeal and a copy of the Demand to Certify Transcript were sent via certified mail to: Michael E. Stinn, Esq., Britton, Smith Peters & Kalail Co., L.P.A. 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 400, Cleveland, Ohio , Counsel for the Euclid City School District Board of Education; Saundra Curtis-Patrick, Esq. Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecutor, Courts Tower, 8th Floor, 1200 Ontario Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, Counsel for the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision and Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer; and Michael DeWine, Esq. Ohio Attorney General, 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor, Columbus, OH , Counsel for the Ohio Tax Commissioner. J. K^ an J gs ( ) Counsel of Record Vi r V. elmo ( ) J on P. L^ dholm ( ) Siegel, Siegel, Johnson & Jennings Co., LPA Science Park Drive, Suite 210 Cleveland, OH (216) COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS KATARINA & IVICA SAPINA 5
7 OHIO BOARD OF TAX APPEALS Katarina & Ivica Sapina and Euclid City ) CASE NOS K-667 and 2009-K-816 School District Board of Education, ) ) (REAL PROPERTY TAX) Appellants/Appellees, vs. ) ) Cuyahoga County Board of Revision and the ) Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer, ) ) Appellees. ) APPEARANCES: ) ) DECISION AND ORDER For the Property - Siegel, Seigel, Johnson & Jennings Co., L.P.A. Owners VictorAnselmo Suite 210, Landmark Centre Science Park Drive Cleveland, Ohio For the County - William D. Mason Appellees Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney Saundra Curtis-Patrick Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Courts Tower, 8t1i Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio For the Board of - Britton, Smith, Peters & Kalail Co., LPA Education Michael E. Stinn Three Summit Park Drive, Suite 400 Cleveland, Ohio Entered Ap R Ms. Margulies, Mr. Johrendt, and Mr. Williamson concur. Both the property owners, Katarina & Ivica Sapina, and the affected board of education, Euclid City School District Board of Education ("BOE"), have filed appeals with this board challenging a decision issued by the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision ("BOR") in which it adjusted the value originally assigned the subject property, i.e., parcel number
8 012, by the Cuyahoga County Auditor ("auditor") for ad valorem tax purposes for tax year We proceed to consider this matter upon the notices of appeal, the transcripts certified by the BOR, the record of this board's hearing, and the written argument submitted on behalf of the Sapinas and the BOE. The subject property is comprised of approximately.20 acres of land and is improved with a two-story brick building. The first floor houses two retail storefronts, one of which serves as an operating carryout restaurant, while the upper floor has two apartment units. For tax year 2007, the auditor assessed the subject property consistent with the following values: TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE Land $ 34,900 Land $ 12,200 Building Building $ 101,500 Total $325,000 Total $113,700 These proceedings were initiated by the property owners when they filed a complaint with the BOR pursuant to R.C (A), requesting that the subject's value be reduced to $125,000. The Sapinas acknowledged their purchase of the property ten months prior to tax lien date, i.e., February 2006, for $325,000, but asserted that the purchase price included not only the real estate, but the acquisition of a business and associated equipment. The BOE filed a countercomplaint, as provided for by R.C (B), requesting that the auditor's value be retained. Ms. Sapina appeared before the BOR and testified regarding the sale of the subject property, referring to the purchase agreement which disclosed the sale of both the realty and assets of the former owners used in the operation of their food and restaurant business. She also testified regarding a mortgage secured on the property for $160,000. Ms. Sapina submitted a written appraisal, in the absence of the author, which expressed an opinion of value, as of January 27, 2009, of $120,000. Despite one member's comment that the value of personal 2
9 property should have been declared at the time of the sale, with personal property tax paid on the value of acquired assets, the BOR reduced the subject's value as follows: TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE Land $ 34,900 Land $12,200 Building $ Building $49,500 Total $175,000 Total $61,700 Both the property owners and the BOE were dissatisfied with the BOR's adjustment and appeals were filed with this board. While the owners initially sought a value of $120,000, relying upon the testimony of Ms. Sapina, and the testimony and written appraisal report of Richard Linhart, they have asserted the subject property had a value of $100,000` as of January 1, 2007, claiming the remainder of the purchase price was attributable to personal property and/or other intangible assets. Although the BOE was not in attendance at hearing, it submitted written argument in support of its position that the best evidence of the subject's value was its sale price, i.e., $325,000. "When cases are appealed from a board of revision to the BTA, the burden of proof is on the appellant, whether it be a taxpayer or a board of education, to prove its right to an increase [in] or decrease from the value determined by the board of revision." Columbus City School Dist. Bd ofedn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofrevision (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 564, 566. Given the sale of the subject property which took place only ten months prior to the pertinent tax lien date, we refer to R.C , wherein the General Assembly statutorily recognized the utility of a sale in establishing the value of real property for purposes of ad valorem taxation: ' While the property owner advocated the acceptance of different values throughout these proceedings, we recognize that a party is not necessarily restricted to the values set forth in its pleadings. See, e.g., Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd of Revision (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 61. See, also, Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d
10 "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." This statute is consistent with the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in State ex rel. Park Invest. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 410, 412, where it held that "[t]he best method of determining value, when such information is available, is an actual sale of such property between one who is willing to sell but not compelled to do so and one who is willing to buy but not compelled to do so. This, without question, will usually determine the monetary value of the property." The preceding has been reiterated on numerous occasions by the court. See, e.g., Conalco Inc. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. ofrevision (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 129, paragraph one of the syllabus ("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."); Berea City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 269, 2005-Ohio-4979, at 16 ("Pursuant to R.C , the sale price in a recent arm's-length transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer shall be considered the true value of the property for taxation purposes."). In Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofrevision, 124 Ohio St.3d 27, 2009-Ohio-5932, the Supreme Court held that this board is justified in viewing evidence of a sale such as tfiat presented in this case as constituting a prima facie showing of value. Id. at 28 (citing Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd of Revision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 13). No one has suggested that the February 2006 sale constituted a "sham transaction," 4
11 involved related parties, was a situation in which either party to the sale was acting under duress, or that the sale is remote from tax lien date? Although it was reported to county officials at the time of the sale that the property transferred for $325,000, the Sapinas now argue this was an erroneous disclosure. In HIN, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 124 Ohio St.3d 481, 2010-Ohio-687, the court discussed the significance of the reporting to county officials of the sale of real estate and the utility of a conveyance fee statement: "R.C provides that `[n]o deed of absolute conveyance of land * * * shall be recorded by the county recorder until * * * [t]he conveyance presented to the recorder bears the stamp of the county auditor *** [and s]uch conveyance has been presented to the county auditor, and by the county auditor indorsed "transferred" or "transfer not necessary."' Before the deed may be endorsed by the auditor, however, R.C requires the new owner to submit a real property conveyance fee statement to the auditor declaring the value of the real property, and pursuant to R.C , the auditor must transfer the parcel into the new owner's name on the tax list. The purpose of this statutory scheme is to provide the auditor the necessary information to determine the true value of property based on a property sale in accordance with R.C "' Id. at There exists no bright line test as to whether a sale is "recent" to or "remote" from a tax lien date for purposes of serving as the "best evidence" of value, but the Supreme Court has held that such determination is not made based exclusively upon temporal proximity. Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn., at 32. However, it remains the burden of a party contesting the utility of a sale to rebut the presumptions to be accorded it. See, e.g., Cincinnati Bd of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 325. We find no basis in this instance for rejecting the sale as remote. See, generally, HK New Plan Exchange Property Owner II, L.L.C. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 122 Ohio St.3d 438, 2009-Ohio (value based upon sale occurring twentyfour months prior to tax lien date); Lakota Local School Dist. Bd ofedn. v. Butler Cty. Bd of Revision, 108 Ohio St.3d 310, 2006-Ohio-1059 (reversing this board's decision and ordering that the property's taxable value as of January 1, 2002 be based upon its sale which occurred in October 2003, twenty-two months after tax lien date). ' We note that the record does not contain a copy of a conveyance fee statement relating to the February 2006 sale of the subject property. However, no one disputes the reporting of the February sale for $325,000. Consistent with the several affirmations required by R.C , the conveyance fee statement prescribed by the Tax Commissioner requires the grantee or its representative to make the following attestation: "I declare under penalties of perjury that this statement has been examined by me and to the best of my knowledge and belief is a true, correct and complete statement." See DTE Form 100. See, generally, Harvard Refirse, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd of Revision (Feb. 5, 1987), Cuyahoga App. Nos through 51677, unreported 5
12 See; also, FirstCal Industrial 2 Acquisition LLC v. Franklin Cty. Bd of Revision, 125 Ohio St.3d 485, 2010-Ohio However, the court has acknowledged that amounts attributable to items other than realty, when proven by competent and probative evidence, are appropriately deducted from a sale price in order to accurately determine the value of realty for ad valorem tax purposes: "When a board of revision's decision is appealed to the BTA, the BTA's duty is to `determine the taxable value of the property whose valuation or assessment by the county board of revision is complained of.' R.C (B). In making that determination, the BTA must decide not only whether a proffered sale price satisfies the criteria of recency and arm's-length character, but also what amount of the stated sale price pertains to the realty. Thus, if the record clearly establishes that a portion of a sale price pertains to personal property, the BTA should subtract that portion from the stated sale price to arrive at the amount of consideration paid for the realty. The latter figure will then constitute the true value of the realty. "The present case does not fall within the rule just stated, because the record does not unequivocally establish a basis for allocating a portion of the sale price to the personal property that was transferred. * * * "We have held that when real property is the subject of a sale and the sale involves an incidental transfer of tangible or intangible personal property, the proponent of allocating a portion of the sale price to assets other than the realty `bears an initial burden of showing the propriety of the allocation.' St. Bernard Self-Storage, L.L.C. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 115 Ohio St.3d 365, Ohio-5249, ***, 14.*** Although [the property owner] has argued both in its notice of appeal and in its second proposition of law that the sale price should be reduced by an amount attributable to personal property, [it] failed to make that argument to the BTA. Instead, [the property owner] confmed its BTA brief to arguing that Footnote contd. (acknowledging that the information requested on a conveyance fee statement is provided by a grantee under penalties of perjury). 6
13 the BTA should not use the sale price to determine the value of the property at all. The BTA had no duty to reduce the sale price on account of the transfer of personal property because [the property owner] did not ask for the reduction and because the record did not unequivocally establish the propriety of making such an allocation." Olentangy Local Schools Bd ofedn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 125 Ohio St.3d 103, 2010-Ohio-1040, at (Parallel citation and footnote omitted and emphasis added.) See, also, Little Silver, L.L.C. v. Rhodes, Hamilton App. Nos. C , et al., 2008-Ohio-3325, at 25 ("In a similar case [i.e., Harvard Refuse, Inc: v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Feb. 5, 1987), Cuyahoga App. Nos through 51677, unreported], the Eighth Appellate District held that the value of property should not be adjusted when, inter alia, `the taxpayer's conveyance fee statement to the auditor denied that the price included payment for any tangible or intangible personal property' and `[t]here was no evidence from which any reasonable person could value the alleged non-realty aspects of the sales transaction. The property owners would have us accept the reported sale amount for the subject property is inaccurate and that, based upon the appraisal tendered on appeal, more than twothirds of the sale price was attributable to something other than the value of the real estate transferred. However, the purchase agreement failed to allocate any specific value to personalty and no effort has since been made to specifically demonstrate the value of such other assets. While we do not question Ms. Sapina's veracity or that items of personal property may have also been acquired as part of the sale, we find the evidence offered insufficient to "unequivocally establish a basis for allocating a portion of the sale price to the personal property that was transferred." Cf. St. Bernard Self-Storage LLC v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. ofrevision, 115 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio Where there exists an arm's-length sale, recent to the 2007 tax lien date, it is inappropriate to consider the alternafive evidence of value offered by appellant. See, 7
14 generally, Pingue v. Franklin Cty. Bd of Revision (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 62, 64 ("It is only when the purchase price does not reflect the true value that a review of independent appraisals based upon other factors is appropriate. '). While the BOR adjusted the fiscal officer's valuation of the property below the February 2006 sale price, we are unable to either discern upon what evidence the BOR relied in doing so or replicate its fmding of value. The Supreme Court has previously held that this board fails to discharge its statutory duty when it does not independently weigh and evaluate the evidence properly before it and does not base its decision of value upon such evidence. See, e.g., Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 130 Ohio St.3d 291, Ohio-5078; Columbus Bd. ofedn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. ofrevision (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 13. "When the BTA determines a value for a property, that valuation is a finding of fact. *** Any finding of fact by the BTA must be supported by the evidence. *** We also require the BTA to state what evidence it considers relevant in reaching a value determination." Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., supra, (Citations omitted.) Accordingly, we fmd the best evidence of the subject's value, as of the effective tax lien date, i.e., January 1, 2007, to be the amount for which it transferred on February 27, 2006, as determined originally by the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer: TRUE VALUE TAXABLE VALUE Land $ 34,900 Land $ 12,200 Building $290,100 Building Total $325,000 Total $113,700 It is therefore the order of this board that the fiscal officer list and assess the subject property in conformity with the decision as announced herein. ohiosearchkeybta 8
15 I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and complete copy of the action taken by the Board of Tax Appeals of the State of Ohio and entered upon its journal this day, with respect to the captioned matter. Sally F. Van Meter, Board Secretary 9
AN IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NO Ivica Sapina & Katarina Sapina, Appellants, Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals. vs.
^'4 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Ivica Sapina & Katarina Sapina, CASE NO. 2012-0883 Appellants, vs. Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals Cuyahoga -County Board of Revision, the Cuyahoga County Auditor,
More informationRIGlNAL. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2ef gsf,l. Board of Education of the Columbus City Schools, Case No Appellee, vs.
RIGlNAL Board of Education of the Columbus City Schools, Appellee, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2ef gsf,l Case No. 11-1531 Franklin County Board of Revision, Franklin County Auditor, and the Tax Commissioner
More information[Cite as Cambridge Commons Ltd. Partnership v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 27, 2005-Ohio-3558.]
[Cite as Cambridge Commons Ltd. Partnership v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 27, 2005-Ohio-3558.] CAMBRIDGE COMMONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANT, v. GUERNSEY COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO NEWPORT HARBOR ASSOCIATION ) CASE NO. CV 11 755497 ) Appellant, ) JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER ) v. ) JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION ) CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF )
More information[Cite as Target Corp. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Revision, 122 Ohio St.3d 142, 2009-Ohio-2492.]
[Cite as Target Corp. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Revision, 122 Ohio St.3d 142, 2009-Ohio-2492.] TARGET CORPORATION, APPELLEE, v. GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Cite as Target Corp. v.
More informationLowe s Home Centers, Inc. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2016-Ohio-372 (February 4, 2016)
Abbreviations: P/O = Property Owner BOE = Board of Education BOR = Board of Revision BTA = Board of Tax Appeals CAV = Complaint Against Valuation TY = Tax Year Lowe s Home Centers, Inc. v. Washington Cty.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Appeal from the Ohio Board of Appellant, Tax Appeals, BTA Case Nos and
sey j^ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Dayton-Point West Real Estate Assoc. LLC Appellee, Case No. 2014-0927 and Board of Education of the Kettering City School District, V. Appeal from the Ohio Board of
More informationFiled 21 August 2001) Taxation--real property appraisal--country club fees included
IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF BERMUDA RUN PROPERTY OWNERS from the Decision of the Davie County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation of Certain Real Property For Tax Year 1999 No. COA00-833
More informationLocation& Mailing Address: Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 1910 Carnegie Ave., 3rd Floor, Cleveland, Ohio
Rules of Procedure The Cuyahoga County Board of Revision is the decision-making body which hears Property Valuation Complaints as outlined and prescribed by Chapter 5715 of the Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C).
More informationSEP CLERK OF COURT 'SUPREME COURT OF 0Hl0 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No Appellees, Counsel for Appe Hamilton County
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Hon. Dusty Rhodes, Hamilton County Auditor, Case No. 2007-0615 Appellee, vs. Hamilton County Board of Revision, the Board of Education of the Princeton City School District
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. COLONIAL VILLAGE LTD., AN OHIO LTD. PART., CONSOLIDATED CASE NOS , And
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO COLONIAL VILLAGE LTD., AN OHIO LTD. PART., CONSOLIDATED CASE NOS. 08-0443, 08-0559 And COLONIAL TERRACE APARTMENTS (AN OHIO CONSOLIDATED CASE GENERAL PART.), NO. 08-0560 And
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Board of Education of the Columbus City Schools, Appellee, Case No. 2007-1086 Franklin County Board of Revision, et al.. Appellees. Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals
More information[Cite as Meijer Stores Ltd. Partnership v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 122 Ohio St.3d 447, 2009-Ohio-3479.]
[Cite as Meijer Stores Ltd. Partnership v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 122 Ohio St.3d 447, 2009-Ohio-3479.] MEIJER STORES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD
More informationReal Estate Tax Issues for School Districts: Defending Your Tax Base
Real Estate Tax Issues for School Districts: Defending Your Tax Base presented by: Jon Brollier Bricker & Eckler LLP November 10, 2014 Property Taxes About 60% of School Funding Based on: Rates/Millage
More informationMAR 0 1Z012. MAR 0 izo1? CLERK OF CCURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. CLERK f^f OOUR'T SUPREME COUB^T OF HIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
LTC Properties, Inc. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Appellant, Case No. 2011-1154 VS. Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals Case No. 2008-A-1010 Licking County Board of Revision, et al, Appellees. REPLY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF ()HIC) REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE OLENTANGY LOCAL SCH:UtJI. DISTRICT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ()HIC) BOARD ()F EDUCATION OI^ TIIE OLEN:I'ANGY LOCAI:. SCHOOLS, Case No. 2013-1506 vs. Appellant, Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals BTA Case No. 2010-2354 DELAWARE COL>NTY
More information11EC L MARCIA J MENGLL, Gl.P-RK SUPREfUE COUR1 OF ONIO. vs. Appellees. Counsel for Appellee, Bedford Board of Education
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO BEDFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION Appellee vs. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, CUYAHOGA COUNTY AUDITOR, [APPELLEES] INTERSTATE HAWTHORNE, LTD. [APPELLANT] CASE NO. 2006-1686 Appeal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Robert A. Rickett, :
[Cite as Rickett v. Ohio Real Estate Appraiser Bd., 2008-Ohio-3169.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Robert A. Rickett, : Appellant-Appellee, : No. 07AP-667 (C.P.C. No. 07CVF04-2925)
More informationINSTRUCTIONS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE & COMPLAINT AGAINST VALUATION FORM TAX YEAR 2018 CALENDAR YEAR 2019
INSTRUCTIONS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE & COMPLAINT AGAINST VALUATION FORM TAX YEAR 2018 CALENDAR YEAR 2019 NOTICE: Please carefully read ALL Instructions; your complaint will be dismissed if not completed
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CVS EGL FRUITVILLE SARASOTA FL, ) LLC and HOLIDAY CVS, LLC, )
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA KATHLEEN GREEN and LEE ANN MOODY, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. DON MITCHELL REALTY/ : JACKIE COLE Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO
[Cite as Don Mitchell Realty v. Robinson, 2008-Ohio-1304.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO DON MITCHELL REALTY/ : JACKIE COLE Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 22031 vs. : T.C. CASE
More information141 East Town Street Columbus, Ohio Fax: Tel:
141 East Town Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Fax: 614.220.5901 www.bluestonelawgroup.com Tel: 614.220.5900 Abbreviations: P/O = Property Owner BOE = Board of Education BOR = Board of Revision BTA = Board
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RICHARD KEITH MARTIN, ROBERT DOUGLAS MARTIN, MARTIN COMPANIES OF DAYTONA BEACH, MARTIN ASPHALT COMPANY AND MARTIN PAVING COMPANY, Petitioners, CASE NO: 92,046 vs. DEPARTMENT
More informationThis case comes before the Court on Petitioner Susan D. Garvey's appeal
STATE OF MAINE YORK, ss. SUSAN D. GARVEY, Petitioner v. ORDER SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: AP-05-036 ' 0 C ' ['I7 TOWN OF WELLS, Respondent This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Susan
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SCO Petitioner, vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondents.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SCO01-663 ALVIN MAZOUREK, as Property Appraiser of Hernando County, Florida Petitioner, vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondents. ON REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT
More informationJAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS
PRESENT: All the Justices JAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 140929 JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
More informationHoiska v. Town of East Montpelier ( ) 2014 VT 80. [Filed 18-Jul-2014]
Hoiska v. Town of East Montpelier (2013-274) 2014 VT 80 [Filed 18-Jul-2014] NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PETER S. GRAF, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : CARA NOLLETTI, : : Appellee : No. 2008 MDA 2013 Appeal from the
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 RON SCHULTZ, as Property Appraiser of Citrus County, et al., Appellants, v. CASE NO. 5D02-2406 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Wilson School District, : Appellant : v. : No. 2233 C.D. 2011 : Argued: December 10, 2012 The Board of Assessment Appeals : of Berks County and Bern Road : Associates
More informationENTRY ORDER 2008 VT 91 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NOS & JANUARY TERM, 2008
Garilli v. Town of Waitsfield (2007-237 & 2007-238) 2008 VT 9 [Filed 19-Jun-2006] ENTRY ORDER 2008 VT 91 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NOS. 2007-237 & 2007-238 JANUARY TERM, 2008 James Garilli APPEALED FROM: v.
More informationRECE IVED JAN 2 1?019 JAN CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. CLERK OF COURT SUPRPME C(IURT OF OHfO CASE NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO In Re: Tom John Karris RESPONDENT Disciplinary Counsel CASE NO. 2010-1898 RELATOR RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF TO RELATOR'S OBJECTIONS TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND
More informationSOUTHERN BELL TEL. & TEL. v. MARKHAM [632 So.2d 272, 19 FLW D406, 1994 Fla.4DCA 465]
SOUTHERN BELL TEL. & TEL. v. MARKHAM [632 So.2d 272, 19 FLW D406, 1994 Fla.4DCA 465] SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. WILLIAM MARKHAM, as Property Appraiser
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MI MONTANA, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 27, 2007 v No. 269447 Tax Tribunal TOWNSHIP OF CUSTER, LC No. 00-309147 Respondent-Appellee. Before: Bandstra,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BARRONCAST, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED November 16, 2006 v No. 262739 Tax Tribunal CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF OXFORD, LC No. 00-301895 Respondent-Appellee. Before:
More informationAPPEAL OF DAVID H. JOHNSON (New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals) Argued: September 15, 2010 Opinion Issued: January 26, 2011
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY
[Cite as Watson v. Neff, 2009-Ohio-2062.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY Jeffrey S. Watson, Trustee, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : : Case No. 08CA12 v. : : DECISION
More informationOPINION. No CV. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee
OPINION No. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants v. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2005-CI-16979 Honorable David A.
More informationCase No Appellees. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Meijer Stores Limited Partnership, Appellant, Franklin County Board of Revision, et al,
Meijer Stores Limited Partnership, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Appellant, Case No. 2008-1248 V. Franklin County Board of Revision, et al, Appellees. Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals Case No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
[Cite as Am. Tax Funding, L.L.C. v. Archon Realty Co., 2012-Ohio-5530.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY AMERICAN TAX FUNDING, LLC : : Appellate Case No. 25096
More informationARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG
HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT L. Slaughter Deputy FILED: CAMELBACK ESPLANADE ASSOCIATION, THE JIM L WRIGHT v. MARICOPA COUNTY JERRY A FRIES PAUL J MOONEY PAUL MOORE UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
More informationCertiorari not Applied for COUNSEL
1 MALOOF V. SAN JUAN COUNTY VALUATION PROTESTS BD., 1992-NMCA-127, 114 N.M. 755, 845 P.2d 849 (Ct. App. 1992) COLLEEN J. MALOOF, Protestant-Appellant, vs. SAN JUAN COUNTY VALUATION PROTESTS BOARD; SAN
More informationS18A0430. CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS v. ALDEASA ATLANTA JOINT VENTURE.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 18, 2018 S18A0430. CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS v. ALDEASA ATLANTA JOINT VENTURE. BENHAM, Justice. This case presents the issue of whether the contract
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION CONDO TERMINATION NORMA QUINONES and KRISTIE
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 17, 2004 COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
Present: All the Justices SHOOSMITH BROS., INC. v. Record No. 032572 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 17, 2004 COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Michael
More informationNo. 116,607 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
No. 116,607 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of the Equalization Appeal of TARGET CORPORATION, for the Year 2015 in Sedgwick County, Kansas. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The Kansas
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE. KENNETH M. SEATON d/b/a KMS ENTERPRISES v. TENNESSEE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ET AL.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE KENNETH M. SEATON d/b/a KMS ENTERPRISES v. TENNESSEE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sevier County Nos. 94-10-310
More informationM E M O R A N D U M. In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioners Herman. Weingord and Hoover Owners Corp. seek a judgment vacating
M E M O R A N D U M SUPREME COURT: QUEENS COUNTY IA PART: 19 ------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of INDEX NO. 16751/05 HERMAN WEINGORD, et al., BY: SATTERFIELD, J. -against-
More informationPROTECTING FEE SIMPLE VALUE FROM A LEASED FEE ANALYSIS: WHY YOUR PROPERTY MAY BE NEXT
PROTECTING FEE SIMPLE VALUE FROM A LEASED FEE ANALYSIS: WHY YOUR PROPERTY MAY BE NEXT Adam C. Strasser, Esq. Senior Tax Manager Walgreens Deerfield, IL adam.strasser@walgreens.com Anthony Barna, MAI Appraiser
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Leonard Blair and Sharon Blair : : v. : No. 1310 C.D. 2010 : Argued: February 7, 2011 Berks County Board of Assessment : Appeals, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC04-815 LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D03-2440 THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, v. VERENA VON MITSCHKE-COLLANDE and CLAUDIA MILLER-OTTO, in their capacity as the HEIRS
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Masuda Akhter v. No. 435 C.D. 2009 Tax Claim Bureau of Delaware Submitted September 25, 2009 County and Glen Rosenwald Appeal of Glen Rosenwald BEFORE HONORABLE
More information[Cite as B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 124 Ohio St.3d 1, 2009-Ohio ]
[Cite as B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 124 Ohio St.3d 1, 2009-Ohio- 5863.] B.J. ALAN COMPANY, D.B.A. PHANTOM FIREWORKS, ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CONGRESS TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
More informationBorowski v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Wis: Court of Appeals, 1st...
Page 1 of 5 JOHN BOROWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal No. 2013AP537. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I. Filed: December 27, 2013. Before
More informationBOARD OF REVIEW SCRIPT
BOARD OF REVIEW SCRIPT CLERK'S SCRIPT: 1. Clerk introduces the case by stating the following information: a. Tax Key # b. Property address c. Property Owner d. Mailing address if different. e. Class of
More informationKESWICK CLUB, L.P. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. January 12, 2007 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Present: All the Justices KESWICK CLUB, L.P. OPINION BY v. Record No. 060672 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. January 12, 2007 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY James A. Luke,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF OHIO O CONNOR, C.J. { 1} In this appeal, we address whether oil-and-gas land professionals, who help obtain oil-and-gas leases for oi
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Dundics v. Eric Petroleum Corp, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-3826.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPELLATE TAX BOARD. MICHAEL F. MORRISSEY & v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPELLATE TAX BOARD MICHAEL F. MORRISSEY & v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS IYA A. MAURER OF THE TOWN OF EASTON Docket No. F315011 Promulgated: January 16, 2014 This is an appeal filed
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ROBERT BLINN, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D14-1636 FLORIDA POWER &
More informationCITY OF AUSTIN S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CAUSE NO. DRAFT CITY OF AUSTIN, Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT; INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO OWN C1 VACANT LAND OR F1 COMMERCIAL REAL PROPERTY WITHIN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; and GLENN
More informationBAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS
PRESENT: All the Justices BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 062715 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY James V. Lane, Judge
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re Estate of ROBERT R. WILLIAMS. J. BRUCE WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 6, 2005 v No. 262203 Kalamazoo Probate Court Estate of ROBERT R. WILLIAMS,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RYAN M. HUIZENGA, Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 1, 2016 v No. 327682 Michigan Tax Tribunal CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, LC No. 14-006527-TT Respondent-Appellee.
More information(Proceeding No. 1.) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Decided and Entered: April 25, 2002 90621 In the Matter of ULSTER BUSINESS COMPLEX LLC, Appellant, V TOWN OF ULSTER et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In the Matter of AG PROPERTIES
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session JUDITH ANN FORD v. JAMES W. ROBERTS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 01-0846 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 30, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-597 Lower Tribunal No. 10-54870 Pierre Philippe,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHARLES MALCHO, TORTOLA ENTERPRISES, INC., BRIAN MALCHO, CHARLES W. ALLBRIGHT III, LEA BRONSON, STEPHEN WITTMANN, GARY DUMBAULD, FOX FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.L.C., ROBERT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO
[Cite as Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Hall, 2003-Ohio-462.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE : CO., SUBROGEE FOR TITLE POINTE Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mercer County Citizens for Responsible Development, Robert W. Moors and Marian Moors, Appellants v. No. 703 C.D. 2009 Springfield Township Zoning Hearing No. 704
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No. Appellees. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION BY APPELLANTS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO JAY HOUSEHOLDER, SR., et al. Appellants, Case No. -vs- ERNEST SHANNON, et al. On Appeal From The Jefferson County Court of Appeals Seventh Appellate District Appellees. Court
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Adams v. Glitz & Assoc., Inc., 2012-Ohio-4593.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97984 BERNARD ADAMS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs.
More informationIN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax DECISION
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax PETER METZGER, Plaintiff, v. CLATSOP COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant. TC-MD 120534D DECISION Plaintiff appeals the 2011-12 real market value of property
More informationAPPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: WILLIAM W. BRASH, 1 Judge. Affirmed. Before Fine, Kessler and Brennan, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 14, 2010 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT consolidated with
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 14-1157 consolidated with 14-1158 STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOP. VERSUS KNOLL & DUFOUR LANDS, LLC
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, 03-14195) JOEL W. ROBBINS (Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser); IAN YORTY (Miami-Dade County
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,906 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DAVID WEBB, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,906 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS DAVID WEBB, Appellant, v. KANSAS REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BOARD, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal
More informationOhio Senate Finance - General Government and Agency Review Subcommittee Hearing. Am. Sub HB 49 / Property Tax Budget Provisions
Ohio Senate Finance - General Government and Agency Review Subcommittee Hearing Am. Sub HB 49 / Property Tax Budget Provisions Sec. 5717.07. If the county auditor, tax commissioner, or any board, legislative
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MELANIE J. HENSLEY, successor to RON SCHULTZ, as Citrus County Property Appraiser, etc., vs. Petitioner, Case No.: SC05-1415 LT Case No.: 5D03-2026 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 9, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 9, 2006 Session CHARLES PELCZYNSKI, ET AL. v. SLATER REAL ESTATE COMPANY Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hawkins County No. 15987 Thomas R.
More informationPerry County. Appeal Procedures, Rules, and Regulations v.1.1
Perry County Appeal Procedures, Rules, and Regulations 2000 v.1.1 PERRY COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS APPEAL PROCEDURES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS Property owners have the right, under Pennsylvania law,
More informationDecided: September 12, S16A0691. HERON LAKE II APARTMENTS, L. P. et al. v. LOWNDES COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: September 12, 2016 S16A0691. HERON LAKE II APARTMENTS, L. P. et al. v. LOWNDES COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS. HINES, Presiding Justice. This is an appeal by the
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KENNETH H. CORDES, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 7, 2012 v No. 304003 Alpena Circuit Court GREAT LAKES EXCAVATING & LC No. 09-003102-CZ EQUIPMENT
More information!71 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Maralgate, LLC, Case No Appellee, Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals BTA Case No.
!71 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Maralgate, LLC, Appellee, Case No. 2010-1769 V. Greene County Board of Revision and Greene County Auditor, Appellants, Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals BTA Case
More information2018COA86. No. 17CA0433 Hogan v. Bd. of Cty. Comm rs Taxation Property Tax Residential Land
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationRelation Back of Exercise of Option Are There Exceptions? By John C. Murray i
Relation Back of Exercise of Option Are There Exceptions? By John C. Murray i In an unusual case decided by the California appellate court several years ago, Wachovia Bank v. Lifetime Industries, Inc.,
More informationAppeal from summary judgment in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Gloria Sturman, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
134 Nev., Advance Opinion 4 IN THE THE STATE SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant, vs. FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS, A DIVISION FIRST TENNESSEE BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O'clock M CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI VERIZON
More informationMERCER COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
MERCER COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS APPEAL PROCEDURES, RULES AND REGULATIONS A property owner has the right, under Pennsylvania law, to appeal their assessments if the owner believes that the assessment
More informationTIDEWATER PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. June 5, 1998 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Present: All the Justices TIDEWATER PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No. 971635 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. June 5, 1998 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF
More informationSenate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith
Senate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to taxation; requiring a county treasurer to assign a tax lien against a parcel of real property located within the county if an assignment
More informationIN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax ) DECISION
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax MARY JO AVERY, Plaintiff, v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant. TC-MD 130170C DECISION Plaintiff appealed the real market value (RMV of certain
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HARTLAND GLEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 19, 2015 v No. 318843 Tax Tribunal TOWNSHIP OF HARTLAND, LC No. 00-416369 Respondent-Appellee.
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES. Federici, J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: MACK EASLEY, Chief Justice, H. VERN PAYNE, Justice. AUTHOR: FEDERICI OPINION
COWAN V. CHALAMIDAS, 1982-NMSC-053, 98 N.M. 14, 644 P.2d 528 (S. Ct. 1982) DOUGLAS COWAN and CECILIA M. COWAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. CHRIS CHALAMIDAS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 13994 SUPREME COURT OF
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT GARY R. NIKOLITS, as Property Appraiser for Palm Beach County, Appellant, v. FRANKLIN L. HANEY, EMELINE W. HANEY and ANNE M. GANNON, as
More informationPresent: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ.
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ. MCCARTHY HOLDINGS LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 101031 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN September 16, 2011 VINCENT W. BURGHER, III FROM THE CIRCUIT
More informationFreedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) Decision notice
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) Decision notice Date: 8 March 2016 Public Authority: Address: The Land Registry Trafalgar House 1 Bedford Park Croydon
More informationEssential Case Law for Illinois Real Estate Tax Appeals Ellen G. Berkshire, Esq. January 29, 2014 Chicago Bar Association
Essential Case Law for Illinois Real Estate Tax Appeals Ellen G. Berkshire, Esq. January 29, 2014 Chicago Bar Association Constitutional Concerns Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec 1341 The district courts
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA David J. Pitti, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2614 C.D. 2003 : Argued: June 10, 2004 Pocono Business Furniture, Inc., : Robert M. Vonson, and Stephen : Jennings : BEFORE:
More informationTioga County Board of Assessment Appeals Tioga County Courthouse 118 Main Street Wellsboro, PA 16901
Tioga County Appeal Procedures Rules Regulations 2008 (v.1.0) Tioga County Board of Assessment Appeals Tioga County Courthouse 118 Main Street Wellsboro, PA 16901 TIOGA COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
More information