Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2005-00330-R-1 Myers

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds no change in the assessment of the
property as established by the Marshall County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
DOCKET NO. PROPERTY NO. LAND IMPR. TOTAL
05-00330.001-R-2 05-13-226-004 $ 16,406 $ 4,120 $ 20,526
05-00330.002-R-2 05-13-226-005 $ 16,406 $ 20,721 $ 37,127
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/MRT/12/11/07
1 of 8
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Marcella L. Myers
DOCKET NO.: 05-00330.001-R-1 and 05-00330.002-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 05-13-226-004 and 05-13-226-005
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Marcella L. Myers, the appellant; by attorney Michael T. Mahoney,
in Chillicothe, and the Marshall County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of two, adjacent irregularly-shaped
lakefront parcels. Parcel 05-13-226-004 is improved with a 784
square foot garage and onto which a portion of the subject
dwelling extends. The majority of the dwelling rests on adjacent
parcel 05-13-226-005. The subject is located on Lake Wildwood,
Hopewell Township, Marshall County.
The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board with
her attorney claiming the subject was incorrectly assessed. The
appellant did not contest the improvement assessments of either
parcel. The appellant did appeal the land assessment for parcel
05-13-226-005, but the Property Tax Appeal Board ruled on May 3,
2007 that it did not have jurisdiction in that case, responding
to a claim by the board of review that the appellant did not file
a complaint with the board of review for parcel 05-13-226-005.
Regarding subject parcel 05-13-226-004, the appellant submitted a
legal argument contending the board of review used faulty data in
assessing the subject and other lots in the subject's
neighborhood. The appellant also argued the subject's assessment
increased by more than 25% from the previous year and failed to
use at least 25 property transfers upon which to base its
increased assessment. Finally, the appellant argued that
Restrictive Covenants of the Lake Wildwood Association prohibit
the sale of a lot which is encumbered by a dwelling encroaching
upon it from an adjacent lot. The appellant situated the subject
dwelling such that most of it rests on an adjacent parcel but
about two feet of the dwelling extends onto the subject lot, upon