IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CINCINNATI SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Case No. 09-1405 Appellant, On Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals vs. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, et. al. Board of Tax Appeals Case No. 2007-A-1196 Appellees, MERIT BRIEF OF APPELLEES CRAIG FENNEL AND FENCO DEVELOPMENT CO. David C. DiMuzio (0034428) Thomas J. Scheve (0011256) Jennifer B. Antaki (0072165) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney David C. DiMuzio, Inc. IIamilton County Prosecutor's Office 19900 Kroger Building 230 East Ninth Street, Suite 400 1014 Vine Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone (513) 946-3049 Phone (513) 621-2888 Facsimile (513) 946-3018 Facsimile (513) 345-4449 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES CINCINNATI SCHOOL DISTRICT HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF BOARD OF EDUCATION REVISION AND COUNTY AUDITOR Glenn F. Alban (0059482) Rex H. Elliott (0054054) Alban & Alban, LLP Charles H. Cooper (0037295) 7100 N. High Street, Suite 102 John C. Camillus (0077435 Worthington, Ohio 43085 Cooper & Elliott, LLC Pbone (614) 340-4044 2175 Riverside Drive Facsimile (614) 340-4042 Colainbus, Ohio 43221 Phone (614) 481-6000 Facsimile (614) 481-6001 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES FENCO DEVELOPMENT CO. AND ^ CRAIG FENNEL tJl. F;CiR 0 V 01 Ci1. I(;:: C_;(ll1fI`i TABLE OF CONTENTS Paee TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................... ii-iii STA"I'EMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................ 1-3 LAW AND ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 4-15 Proposition of Law No. 1: Because Appellant Did Not Meet its Burden of Proof Below, This Court Must Affirm the Decision of the Board of Tax Appeals ............... 3-5 Proposition of Law No. 2: Despite the Statutory Lariguage, When There is no Other Recent Evidence of Value from a Non-Auction Sale, a Recent Auction Sale Can be Considered for Purposes of Deterniining the True Value of a Property in Revaluation Hearing When There is Sufficient Indicia That the Sale was Arms-Length, and the Value Established by the Auction Sale is Supported by Other Evidence .................................... 5-11 Proposition of Law No. 3: This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Determine if Craig Fennel Committed the Unauthorized Practice of Law .................................... 11-12 Proposition of Law No. 4: A Corporate Officer Does Not Commit the Unauthorized Practice of Law by Pai-ticipating as a Witness in a Hearing in Front of tlie Board of Tax Appeals Regarding the Revaluation of Corporate Property When the Corporation is not Represented by Counsel in the Proceeding ........................................................... 12-15 C O N C L I J S I O N 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................ 16 APPENDIX Anua. No. Transcript of Proceedings in the Board of Tax Appeals ....................................... A-1 R. C. 5717.04 . .. A-14 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES page AEI Net Lease Income & Growth Fund v. Erie County Bd. of Revision (2008), 119 Ohio St. 3d 563, 2008 Ohio 5203; 895 N.E.2d 830 ............................ 8 Banasik vs. Franklin County Board ofRevision (Feb. 7, 1992), BTA No. 90-C- 1107, unreported.. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. 9 Bd ofRevision of Cuyahoga County v. Fodor (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 52, 239 N.E.2d 25 .......... ........... ... .. ....... .......... ..... ......... ... .. .. .. .. ... ......... ...... 5 Bedford Bd, of Educ. v. Cuyahoga County Bd of Revision (Jan. 3, 1997), B'1'A No. 1995-T-275, unreported ................................ 6 Beljon v. Portage County Bd ofRevision (Aug. 1, 1997), BTA No. 1996-T-996, unreported . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. 7 Berea C'ity School Dist. Bd of Educ. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 269, 2005-Ohio-4979, 834 N.E.2d 782 ................................. 8 Brennan v. Board of Tax Appeals (1963) 175 Ohio St. 263, 193 N.E.2d 700 5 Cardinal Federal S. & L. Assn, v. Cuyahoga CountyBd. ofRevision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 336 N.E.2d 433 ..................................................... 11 Cleveland Bd of Educ, v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision (Jan. 15, 1999), BTA No. 7 1997-J-1 385, unreported ................................. Columbus Bd. ofFduc_ v. Fountain Square Assocs. (1984), 9 Ohio St. 3d 218, 459 N.E.2d 894 ..................................................................... 7 Conalco v. Monroe County Bd. of Revision (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 129, 363 N.E.2d 722 ... .............. ... ... .. ....... ... .. ................. .. .... ............ 6 Concept Investment Group, LLC v Franklin Coamry Bd. ofRevision (Nov. 17, 2006), BTA No. 2005-T-1267, unreported................................................ 6 Coplay-Fairlawn City School Dist. Bd of Educ. v. Summit County Bd. of Revision (Dec. 21, 2007), BTA No. 2006-A- 1074, unreported 11 CumminsPropertyServs., L.L.C. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision, 117 Ohio St.3d 516, 2008 Ohio 1473, 885 N.E.2d 222 8 ii Dayton Supply & Tool Company, Inc., v. Montgomery County Board ofRevisions, 111 Ohio St.3d 367, 2006 -Ohio- 5852, 856 N.E.2d 926... 8 Fair Store Co. v. Board of Revision of Hamilton County (1945), 145 Ohio St. 231, 61 N.E.2d 209 ........................ 5 Mentor Exernpted Village Bd ofEduc. v. Lake County Bd. ofRevision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 318, 526 N.E.2d 64 ............................................. 4 Mills v. Lucas County Bd. ofRevision (Apr. 29, 1994), BTA No. 1992-Z-553, unreported ............. ........................ 7 Murray Hill Properties LP v. Franklin County Bd of Revision (Sept. 19, 1997), BTA No. 1996-A-1005, unreported . ..... .. .. .. ... ..... ....... .................... 7 Nicholson Cleveland Terminal Co. v. Cuyahoga County Bd ofRevision (July 12, 1985), BTA Nos. 1991-G-373, unreported .................. 9 Rhodes v. Hamilton County Bd. ofRevision, 117 Ohio St.3d 532, 2008 Ohio 1595, 885 N.E.2d 236 ...... .... .. ... ......... ....... .. .......... ......... .. ...... .... .. .... 8 R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga County Bd. ofRevision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 527 N.E.2d 874 .................................................................................... 5 Sinith v. Pagett (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 244, 513 N.E.2d 278 ............................ 13 State ex rel. Park Investsnent Co. v. Bd. of Iax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 410, 195 N.F,.2d 908 ................................................................... 6 Tele-Media Co. v. Lindley (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 284, 436 N.E.2d 1362.......... 3 Walters v. Knox County Bd. ofRevision (1988), 47 Ohio St.3d 23, 546 N.E.2d 932.... 8 STATUTES R. C. 5713.04. .. 6 R.C. 5715.19 ............................................................................... 13 R. C. 5717.04 . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 11 i STATEMENT OF FACTS In February of 2006, Fenco Development Company ("Fenco Development") purchased a dilapidated and blighted apartment building located at 144 Glencoe Place, Cincinnati, Ohio ("the property").' (Appellant's Appx. 2.) The proper-ty was purchased by the President of Fenco Development, Craig Fennel, at a cornpetitive nationally advertised public auction sale held by the U.S. Deparlinent of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). (Appellee's Appx. 11, 13, 28.) The unrebutted testimony and evidence submitted and considered by the Ohio Board of Revision and Tax Appeals shows the following. (Appellant's Appx. 6, 7.) The property was purchased at a busy IiUD public auction (the "HUD sale" or "HUD auction") wherein several otlier persons actively bid on the property. (Appellee's Appx. 11, 13, 28.) The record shows that all the bidders that attended the HUD sale and bid on the property were independent, acting in their own self interest, not affiliated with the seller or each other, and not subject to any pressure or duress from the other parties. (Id.) Craig Fennel spoke with some of the bidders at the HUD sale and several of them informed him that they had traveled from out-of-state to attend the auction and bid on the property that he, acting on belialf of Fenco Development, ultimately purchased. (Id.) After a ten to fifteen minute bidding war, Craig Fennel was able to successfully purchase the property for Fenco Development. (Id. 28.) The property was purchased at the sale for its fair market value of $135,000.00. (Appellant's Appx. 6.) Upon fmding that the IHamilton County Auditor had placed a $479,600.00 valuation on the property that his company purchased, Craig Fennel, acting for Fenco Development, filed a complaint with the Hamilton County Board of Revision seeking a reduction in the property's valuation. (Appellant's Appx. 5.) The HUD sale was the most recent arm's- ' The parcel nuinber on record at the Hainilton County Auditor's Office for the propeity is 088-0009-0010-00. -1- length sale at the time Fenco Development sought a reduction in the property's valuation. (Appellant's Appx. 7, 11.) After a hearing on the merits, the Ilamilton County Board of Revision reduced the true value of the property to $135,000.00. (See Appellant's Supp. 1, 7-8.) The Hamilton County Board of Revision agreed with the county appraiser that the current value of the property was too high and set the value of the property at the price established by the HUD sale. (See Appellant's Appx. 7.) The Board of Revision's decision to reduce the true value of the property was supported by other evidence provided during the hearing. (Appellant's Appx. 6-9, 11.) No evidence was submitted on behalf of Appellant