Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Goldshtein v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 836
• Docket Number: 115676

• Judges: Laster Mays

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (9.5K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Abuse of discretion; board of revision. The trial court did not abuse its discretion finding, without a hearing, the appellant did not establish reliable evidence that the decision of the board of revision is in error.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as Goldshtein v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 2026-Ohio-836.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

SAMYEL GOLDSHTEIN, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 115676
v. :

FISCAL OFFICER CUYAHOGA :
COUNTY,
:
Defendant-Appellee.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 12, 2026

Administrative Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-25-121191

Appearances:

Samyel Goldshtein, pro se.

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Edmund Tallos, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:

Plaintiff-appellant Samyel Goldshtein (“Goldshtein”) appeals the trial

court’s decision affirming the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision’s (“BOR”)
findings declining to reduce the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer’s assessment of the

value of his property. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In August 2024, Goldshtein received a letter from the appraisal

department of Cuyahoga County informing him that the assessed value of his

property was raised from $47,700 to $165,100. Goldshtein hired an appraiser, who

completed an exterior-only appraisal, and appraised the property for $75,000.

Goldshtein provided a copy of the appraisal to the county. When the assessed value

of the property remained unchanged, Goldshtein filed a complaint with the BOR.

A hearing was set, and Goldshtein appeared telephonically. He

testified about the condition of his home, the increase in the assessed value, lead

hazards without submission of remediation costs, and that it was a rental property

that had not been rented in 2024, and he submitted the report from the appraiser.

The appraiser did not appear at the hearing to testify. The BOR found that

Goldshtein’s evidence was insufficient and maintained that the value of the property

was $165,100.

Goldshtein appealed the BOR’s decision to the Cuyahoga County

Common Pleas Court but did not request a hearing. The case was submitted on

briefs, and the same evidence that was provided to the BOR was also provided to the

trial court. Again, the appraiser hired by Goldshtein did not testify. On

September 30, 2025, the trial court issued a decision affirming the BOR’s decision.

In the trial court’s judgment entry, it stated in part:
Appellant appeared before the Board of Revision and testified about the
increase in assessed value for the 2024 sexennial update, the condition
of the property, and a non-tax lien dated exterior only appraisal.
Appellant did not present any written estimates or written costs of
repair. The Board of Revision found that Appellant did not present
sufficient probative evidence to support a reduction in value of the
home.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that absent proof that the action
of a Board of Revision was not performed in good faith and in the
exercise of sound judgment, the action of the Board of Revision in
determining the value of real property for tax purposes must be
presumed to be valid; and a taxpayer has the duty to prove his right to
a reduction in the valuation of real property. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v.
Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, 68 Ohio St. 3d 336, 626 N.E.2d 933
(1994). This Court finds that Appellant’s appeal does not establish by
reliable evidence that the decision of the Board of Revision is in error.
The Court finds that Appellant did not present any probative and
competent evidence that would justify the decrease in value of the
home.

Judgment Entry No. 202119760 (Sept. 30, 2025).

Goldshtein filed this appeal assigning one error for our review:

The trial court abused its discretion finding, without a hearing, the
appellant did not establish reliable evidence that the decision of the
BOR is in error.

II. Standard of Review

“‘The fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of

fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing

authorities.’” Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2025-Ohio-

2990, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), quoting MREV Archwood, LLC v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of

Revision, 2022-Ohio-2356, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.). “Under R.C. 5717.05, ‘[t]he common

pleas court then reviews that decision de novo.’” Id., citing id. “On appeal to this

court, the judgment of the common pleas court addressing questions of fact
including the weight to be given to appraisal evidence shall not be disturbed absent

a showing of abuse of discretion.” (Cleaned up.) Id. “In particular, the decision to

adopt one appraisal of land value over another appraisal of land value is reviewed

for an abuse of discretion.” Id., citing Viola Assocs., LLC v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of

Revision, 2021-Ohio-991, ¶ 36 (9th Dist.).

III. Law and Analysis

In Goldshtein’s sole assignment of error, he argues that the trial court

just rubber-stamped the BOR’s decision without giving him a chance to have his day

in court and protect himself. As this court stated in Costco, the Supreme Court in

Black v. Bd. of Revision, 16 Ohio St.3d 11, 13-14 (1985), clarified the duty imposed

upon a court of common pleas when reviewing a decision from a board of revision

under R.C. 5717.05.

“[T]he common pleas court has a duty on appeal to independently
weigh and evaluate all evidence properly before it. The court is then
required to make an independent determination concerning the
valuation of the property at issue. The court’s review of the evidence
should be thorough and comprehensive and, should ensure that its
final determination is more than a mere rubber stamping of the board
of revision’s determination.

...

While R.C. 5717.05 requires more than a mere review of the decisions
of the board of revision, that review may be properly limited to a
comprehensive consideration of existing evidence and, in the court’s
discretion, to an examination of additional evidence. The court should
consider all such evidence and determine the taxable value through its
independent judgment. In effect, R.C. 5717.05 contemplates a decision
de novo. It does not, however, provide for an original action or trial de
novo.”

Costco at ¶ 11, quoting Black at 13-14.
The trial court must also demonstrate that its final determination of

value is more than a mere rubber-stamping of the BOR’s determination.

Having determined that R.C. 5717.05 requires the trial court to
independently determine value, the question becomes: how does the
trial court demonstrate that it has in fact made an independent
determination of value? In general, a trial court only “speaks through”
its journal entries.

Id. at ¶ 12, quoting Hopkins v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2024-

Ohio-2265, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.).

“Moreover, it is a generally accepted principle that a trial court is not

required to explain the reasoning for its decisions or otherwise issue findings of fact

and conclusions of law unless required to do so by a rule or statute.” Costco, 2025-

Ohio-2990, at ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). See, e.g., State v. Lusane, 2018-Ohio-1775, ¶ 18-20

(8th Dist.); State v. Francis, 2004-Ohio-6894, ¶ 56. “Indeed, it has been often noted

by appellate courts that while the best practice for a trial court is to set forth their

reasoning for a ruling, the failure to provide any analysis is not in and of itself an

abuse of discretion.” Costco, 2025-Ohio-2990, at ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing Nemec v.

Morledge, 2021-Ohio-3361, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.); see also Yankovitz v. Greater

Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2023-Ohio-2584, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.) (“We strongly

encourage trial courts to explain a decision in a written opinion.”). “However, ‘in

the absence of specific requirements to the contrary, decisions as to whether to hold

a hearing and as to whether to explain reasons for a ruling are matters entrusted to

the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Id., quoting Lusane at ¶ 19.
In this instant case, the trial court did issue a judgment entry to

explain its decision. In the trial court’s judgment entry, it demonstrated that the

trial court conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the appellant’s

submitted evidence. The trial court stated in part: “Appellant did not present any

written estimates or written costs of repair.” Judgment Entry No. 202119760

(Sept. 30, 2025). Further, the trial court determined that Goldshtein did not provide

evidence or proof that the action of the BOR was not performed in good faith and in

the exercise of sound judgment. Additionally, the trial court determined that

Goldshtein did not provide reliable evidence that the decision of the BOR was in

error and did not present any probative and competent evidence that would justify

the decrease in the assessed value of the home.

On the facts of this case, Goldshtein did not submit additional

evidence beyond the BOR’s record, including offering testimony from the appraiser.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court’s decision sufficiently

indicates that it made an independent determination of property value and did not

merely rubber-stamp the BOR’s decision. Goldshtein submitted an appraisal that

did not represent a complete evaluation of the property and stated that he did not

want to pay extra for a full appraisal and submitted an exterior-only appraisal.

Goldshtein did not submit photographs of the interior or any written estimate of the

costs of repairs to the property. Further, based on these facts, we conclude that the

trial court did issue a detailed analysis supporting its decision, and it was sufficient
in detail to help us to determine whether the trial court has exercised its independent

judgment as required under R.C. 5717.05.

Goldshtein further contends that the trial court erred by not holding

a hearing. However, Goldshtein did not request a hearing, and the decision as to

whether to hold a hearing for a ruling is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion

of the trial court. See Costco, 2025-Ohio-2990, at ¶ 12 (8th Dist.).

Therefore, Goldshtein’s assignment of error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

---

ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE

LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR