Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton
Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas No.
Strauss Troy Co., L.P.A., and Marshall K. Dosker, for
Britton Co., LPA, and Gary T. Stedronsky, for
Appellee/Cross-Appellant Board of Education of the Princeton
City School District.
T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas
J. Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Appellee Dusty
Rhodes, Hamilton County Auditor.
The Board of Education of the Princeton City School District
("school district") appeals the judgment of the
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in favor of the
appellant property owners in their appeal of a decision of
the Hamilton County Board of Revision ("board of
revision"). We find no merit in the school
district's assignments of error, and we affirm the trial
Amani and Akram Othman filed a complaint for the 2014 tax
year with the board of revision in which they sought to
reduce the value of property they owned at 100 Tri-County
Parkway from $4, 997, 430 to $880, 000. The school district
filed a counter-complaint in which it sought to maintain the
value assigned by Hamilton County Auditor Dusty Rhodes
("the auditor"). Following a hearing, the board of
revision maintained the auditor's value of $4, 997, 430.
In 2015, the Othmans appealed the decision of the board of
revision to the common pleas court, pursuant to R.C. 5717.05.
Thereafter, they filed a motion to supplement the record with
evidence of an independent appraisal, which the school
district and the auditor opposed. The trial court denied the
motion to supplement.
The parties filed briefs in support of their valuations.
After a hearing, the magistrate affirmed the decision of the
board of revision to maintain the auditor's valuation.
The Othmans filed objections to the magistrate's
decision. Following its review, the trial court adopted the
magistrate's decision on November 4, 2016. The Othmans
appealed the trial court's decision, in the case numbered
C-160878. Then they filed a motion in the trial court for
reconsideration or, in the alternative, for relief from
judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). They also filed a motion in this
court for a limited remand for the trial court to consider
the motion, which we granted.
On remand, the trial court held a hearing on the Othmans'
motion, and allowed them to present additional evidence,
including the independent appraisal which the court had
previously disallowed. The Othmans presented the testimony of
Eric Gardner, a commercial real estate appraiser, and his
appraisal. Gardner opined that the property's market
value as of January 1, 2014, was $950, 000. The Othmans also
presented evidence that the property had been on the market
for several years before it was sold in December 2016 for
After the hearing, on March 27, 2017, the court granted the
motion for reconsideration and determined that the value of
the property for tax purposes for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 tax
years was $950, 000. The school district appealed the trial
court's decision in the case numbered C-170187.
As conceded by the Othmans' counsel at oral argument, we
must dismiss their appeal in the case numbered C-160878
because they advance no assignments of error for our review.
We consider ...