Login | January 21, 2025
5th District Court reverses BTA decision against Sunbury homeowner
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: January 21, 2025
A Fifth District Court of Appeals panel reversed a Delaware County Board of Tax Appeals decision that judges determined deprived a Sunbury man his due process rights.
The appellate panel held the county Board of Revision failed to give James Quinton III the opportunity to argue his claim in support of a change in valuation when it reconvened a hearing without notifying him.
“It was Quinton’s burden to prove his requested change in valuation,” Fifth District Judge Andrew King wrote for the 3-0 panel. “In failing to be noticed of the reconvened hearing, Quinton was denied the opportunity to question (a county representative), present rebuttal or additional testimony and/or argue against the hearsay finding. We find Quinton was denied the opportunity to a full and fair hearing.”
Quinton paid $381,000 in 2019 for the construction of a home in Berlin Township, case background provided. After moving into the home, Quinton noticed widespread cracks and damages to walls, floors, ceilings and tile throughout the home and was unable to resolve the issues with the builder.
The county auditor valued the home at $325,000 in 2022, prompting Quinton to file a complaint with the Delaware County Board of Revision seeking a reduction in value to $0, summary continued.
Quinton appeared at a hearing scheduled for July 27, 2023, to explain the damages to his home. He testified that, according to the structural engineer, geotechnical engineer and construction attorney that he hired to evaluate the problem, his home had been built on expansive shale and there were voids under the home causing it to sink and heave.
Quinton also presented photographs of his home and an appraisal valuing the property at $0, in addition to an engineering report, background provided.
The board tabled any decision in order to have a staff appraiser inspect the home and receive comments from the geotechnical engineer.
The board reconvened Sept. 7, 2023, and held another hearing at which Quinton was not present as he had not been notified, the summary detailed.
In a decision dated the same day, the board noted the home’s value previously had been lowered by $25,000 to reflect the damages. The board also determined that the submitted appraisal and report were inadmissible as neither expert testified at the July hearing.
The Board of Revision concluded that Quinton failed to provide sufficient information to meet his burden of proof.
Quinton appealed to the county Board of Tax Appeals, alleging a violation of his procedural due process rights for failing to notify him of the September hearing.
In a March 26 decision, the tax appeals board agreed the submitted reports were inadmissible because the experts did not testify and therefore the reports would not be considered.
Additionally, the appeals board concluded that Quinton did not demonstrate how the damages to his home impacted the home’s value and he failed to meet his burden of proof to warrant the requested reduction.
Quinton subsequently appealed to the Fifth District appellate court.
“Quinton correctly argues he is entitled to procedural due process in an administrative proceeding,” King continued, citing a Franklin County appellate ruling from 1981. “Our Tenth District colleagues stated, ‘procedural due process includes the right to a reasonable notice of hearing as well as a reasonable opportunity to be heard’ to ‘insure the fairness of the hearing.’ Reasonable notice includes notice of the time, date, location and subject matter of the hearing.”
The Fifth District appellate panel reversed the Board of Tax Appeals decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Presiding Fifth District Judge William Hoffman and Judge Craig Baldwin joined King’s opinion.
Copyright © 2024 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved