Legal Opinion Letter on HB 17 and Roosevelt Properties Co. v. Kinney regarding Garage Condominiums

Summary

A legal opinion letter dated October 10, 2025 from an Ohio attorney, Benjamin Scherner, to the president of the Horsepower Farms Property Association, concerning HB 17 and the Ohio Supreme Court decision in Roosevelt Properties Co. v. Kinney, 12 Ohio St. 3d 7, 465 N.E. 2d 421 (1984). The letter states the opinion that HB 17 is a necessary clarification consistent with Roosevelt. It describes Roosevelt as upholding property tax treatment based on the owner's use of property rather than its classification alone. It argues that owner-occupied garage condominium uses are residential and not commercial, and that clarification is needed because garage condominiums did not exist when the legislation addressed in Roosevelt was enacted. The letter says the opinion may be shared as the recipient finds necessary.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

BENJAMIN SCHERNER

ATTORNEY AT LAW
3982 POWELL ROAD, Surtse 808
TELEPHONE: 614.734.0777 POWELL, OHIO 48065 FACSIMILE 614.737.5288
BEN@BENSCHERNER.COM

October 10, 2025

Chip Vance, President

HORSEPOWER FARMS PROPERTY ASSOCIATION
4301 Home Road

Powell, Ohio 43065

RE: HB17 and the Roosevelt Case
Dear Mr. Vance:

As we discussed, it is my legal opinion that HB 17 is a necessary clarification that is
wholly consistent the Ohio Supreme Court decision in Roosevelt Properties Co. v. Kinney, 12
Ohio St. 3d 7, 465 N.E. 2d 421 (1984). In Roosevelt the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the
legislature’s taxing of certain types of properties based on the owner’s use — agreeing that it is
not entirely the classification (residential vs commercial) of the property but the owner’s
utilization of the property that matters.

The Court reviewed a law that allowed residential property tax reductions, as long as the
owner’s residential property did not contain a multiunit building of four or more units. Perhaps
better stated, the law allowed a commercial for profit owner to get the residential property tax
reduction as long as the building contained three or less units even if the owner’s entire interest
was commercial and for profit.

The law and the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision did not turn on the residential zoning of
the property, but rather the use of the owner. The Court, in its review, recognized the distinction
between "residential property owners," and those persons or concerns who hold land not as their
home, but for "commercial" purposes or as "business land-holders." /d. at 12.

The Court concluded that “[t]hose sections are not intended to benefit the owners of
multiunit apartment complexes, or other properties designed for residential occupancy but which
are not utilized as such by their owners.” /d. Importantly, the Court emphasized that the uses of
the owners were “singularly commercial in nature.” Jd.

The Court’s clear focus was the use of the owners.

Similar to the focus of Roosevelt, our owners occupy their own units and have no
commercial uses. Our garage condo owner’s uses are singularly residential in nature. Our units
are like a barn on a separate parcel utilized by a farmer, only our uses are wholly consistent with
residential use if not identical to the use of a residential garage or outbuilding. Our
condominium uses are also similar and consistent with an owner that may own two residential
properties and not rent either (thus getting the property tax reduction) - for example a home in
suburbia and a condo downtown.

Interestingly and importantly, the Court in Roosevelt upheld a property classification that
included a landlord’s ownership of a multiunit of three or less in its residential classifications -
this is important because our owner’s uses are infinitely more residential than the Roosevelt non-
owner, non-occupied landlord’s use of a three unit apartment. This distinction is relevant
because the Roosevelt Court and the Ohio legislature allowed smaller landlords/owners with only
commercial interests and no residential use at all to still receive the tax reduction.

Accordingly, if someone cites Roosevelt to argue that our uses are not ‘residential’, they
are missing the point. While we concede garage condominium owners may not be residing in
their condominium, their uses are entirely residential in nature - and, more importantly,
absolutely not commercial or for any type of financial gain.

Owner occupied garage condominium uses are more residential and less commercial than
those landlords that own three unit apartments and are allowed to take advantage of residential
property tax reductions.

So why is the clarification needed? Because garage condominiums did not exist at the
time of the tax legislation addressed by Roosevelt. And, because Ohio’s county treasurers and
garage condominium owner-occupiers need this legislative guidance.

Given Ohio’s history of property tax analysis based on ‘use’ in Roosevelt, HB 17,
provides consistent and needed clarity for the owner-occupied garage condo owner and the
county treasurers.

As a side note, the law in most municipalities and counties does not allow someone to
live in their residential garage or outbuilding. That would require meeting certain building codes
and obtaining an occupancy permit and, thereafter, it would no longer be a garage. Really the
distinction currently made by county treasurers is an arbitrary determination if the garage is on
the property of an occupied home - which is an outdated view and inconsistent with Roosevelt.

I hope this addresses you question regarding the Roosevelt decision. Please feel free to
share this opinion letter as you feel necessary.

Very truly yours,

Benjamin Scherner

File and source

File

2025-10-15_development_testimony_testimony-11495.pdf

Size

491,302 bytes

SHA-256

f8719ae38926f626fac4e7f1754d9411d92c21468ddeb29e2426964e2b6a9320

Our copy

2025-10-15_development_testimony_testimony-11495.pdf

Original

No public link identified.