The couple filed an appeal with the county’s Board of Revision in 2007 to lower the value from $310,930.
The house was built in 2006. Sean Tehan, 39, worked on building and designing much of it himself.
“It’s a nice house,” he said. “But it’s not worth $300,000.”
The county Board of Revision agreed and reduced the value to $209,680.
It would be the first skirmish in a three-year battle as the Southeastern Local School District challenged the ruling with the Board of Tax Appeals in Columbus.
When the district lost the Board of Tax Appeals case, officials filed another challenge in 2009 with the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Tehans, along with Sean Tehans’ parents, say they were floored and increasingly frustrated with the battle.
“Why would they keep doing this? It’s been horrible,” Sean Tehan said.
The Tehans said that the district spent thousands to recoup an estimated $900 if the district prevailed.
“This is money spent by the district, money spent by the taxpayers because the county prosecutor’s office has to fight this, too,” Sean Tehan said. “This is money that should be spent on educating our kids.”
‘A frivolous case’
Assistant County Prosecutor William Hoffman represented the county auditor’s office in the dispute, arguing that the revised valuation was correct.
“We have an interest in protecting the determined value,” Hoffman said.
It is rare for a residential property value to be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, “mainly because it probably cost (the school district) more to fight it than they would get on the back end,” he said.
Hoffman said he’s never seen a residential case go before the supreme court.
The prosecutor’s office didn’t have any overtime defending the Tehan case, he said.
Clark County Auditor George Sodders said it is “extremely rare” for a school district to appeal a residential property case to the state’s highest court.
“In fact, I don’t know of any other cases involving residential properties that has gone that far,” Sodders added. “It’s definitely rare.”
The auditor said the Tehans’ initial appeal to the county BOR was accepted based upon a review of the Tehans’ property.
“The local board of revision’s decision was upheld by the (tax appeals) bureau of the Ohio Tax Department,” Sodders said.
Sodders said he didn’t understand why the district pursued the case. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a school district basically harass a property owner in their district and spend taxpayer dollars,” the auditor said. “They’re spending money to educate children to pursue judgment in a frivolous case. All I can tell you is that I’m glad I’m not a taxpayer in the Southeastern school district.”
School board not in agreement
A split Southeastern Local Board of Education voted at its May 18 meeting voted to discontinue pursuit of the Tehan case.
With a 3-to-2 vote, member Jeff Banion and vice president Rick Burton dissented with a resolution that included dismissing the Tehan case along with three other tax appeals from 2009.
At the meeting, Banion said dismissing the cases would be a disservice to Southeastern taxpayers.
“Dropping this issue now would be a total waste of taxpayer money and we have spent money,” Banion said.
He added that newer board members may not have had time to review the Tehans’ case from both sides.
“In this case, we had documents that were clearly altered that would benefit the taxpayer,” Banion said.
He did not elaborate on what documents he was speaking of at the meeting.
Banion also said tax appeals have worked for the district. McKee said appeals have recovered about $5,500 a year from appeals.
Burton had questions about part of the resolution that appeared to amend treasurer Brad McKee’s job description in such a way that the board, not McKee, would determine which property values were appealed in the future. on a case-by-case basis.
Board president John Kitchen suggested passing the resolution to dismiss the cases and resolving other issues at the next board meeting.
Members Tony Entler and Frances Edwards agreed.
“The thing I know is that we’ve spent a lot of money,” Edwards said. “I’m not a mathematician (but) we’ve spent more than we can justify.”
“I’m totally against going after a private homeowner,” Edwards added.
Costs of the case
In response to an information request seeking the costs of the legal dispute, the Southeastern district provided 82 pages of heavily redacted financial records that did not display descriptions of work that attorney Lisa Burleson completed for the district, just hours billed.
The documents show that the legal bills from 2007 through March 2010 for the Tehan’s case topped $6,600, but that other legal billings for work involving the Tehan’s case, other valuation complaints and “other board business” amounted to an additional $5,650 in legal fees.
Contact this reporter at (937) 328-0374 or boutten@coxohio.com
About the Author