In the case of Licking Heights Local Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-345, 2019-Ohio-5082, an Ohio appellate court held that an administrative agency rejecting the testimony of a witness for ambiguous grounds is an abuse of discretion.
In this case, a board of education appealed the valuation of property determined by a county auditor to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) for the purposes of a tax lien. BTA rejected the testimony of the Board of Education’s appraiser on the basis that the Board of Education’s appraiser improperly used post tax lien renovations in their analysis.
The Ohio appellate court held that BTA’s analysis concerning what the renovations mentioned by the board of education’s appraiser referred to was unclear and, thus, found BTA’s analysis could not be reasonable and supported by the evidence. The Ohio appellate court reversed BTA’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
To read this more, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is always changing like the Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.