Yim v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals’ valuation of the appellants’ property at $138,000 for tax year 2017, based on a June 28, 2017 sale. The court held that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption that the earlier HUD sale was a forced sale and did not present sufficient evidence to show that the later sale was not an arm’s-length transaction.

Holdings

1. A HUD sale is presumptively a forced sale and is not evidence of a property's value unless the party relying on it presents evidence rebutting the presumption by showing that the sale was voluntary and occurred at arm's length between typically motivated parties.
2. The appellants failed to rebut the presumption that the HUD sale was a forced sale and not indicative of taxable value.
3. When a sale is shown to have occurred and appears on its face to be a recent arm's-length sale, the opposing party bears the burden of producing rebuttal evidence; the Board of Tax Appeals properly used the undisputed $138,000 sale price to establish the property's taxable value.
4. The Board of Tax Appeals properly conducted an independent review of the statutory transcript, weighed the competing sale evidence, and determined that the June sale best reflected the property's value.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Board of Tax Appeals erred by treating the June 28, 2017 sale from ProsperCle, L.L.C., to the appellants as a recent arm's-length sale reflecting the property's taxable value.
2. Whether the Board of Tax Appeals erred by rejecting the May 3, 2017 HUD sale as presumptively non-arm's-length and not indicative of value.
3. Whether the Board of Tax Appeals improperly relied on documentary evidence, including the HUD settlement statement and MLS listing, without firsthand witness testimony.

Disposition

affirmed