School board sought review of valuation of property by the Board of Tax Appeals.
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that:
- Board had no obligation to make particularized findings of fact and conclusions of law in upholding appraiser’s valuation, and
- Evidence supported appraiser’s methodology.
Board of Tax Appeals had no obligation to make particularized findings of fact and conclusions of law in upholding appraiser’s valuation of property. Board determined a value based on record that contained owner’s appraisal as the only substantive evidence of value, and Board predicated its determination on that value and said so.
Evidence supported appraiser’s methodology, which lumped together automobile service center and mall department store in order to create one building that was then valued as a mall department store. Appraiser advanced several grounds in support of her method, school board that opposed method did not remotely negate appraiser’s reasons, and appraiser had valued analogous properties using same method.