A dispute over a significant increase in a home’s assessed value has ended with an appellate court upholding the decision to maintain the higher valuation, highlighting the standards required for property owners seeking reductions in tax assessments. The case centers on a challenge by a homeowner who argued that local authorities had overvalued his property, but courts found he did not provide enough evidence to justify lowering the assessment.
Samyel Goldshtein filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, after both the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas declined to reduce the assessed value set by the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer. The decision was journalized on March 12, 2026, under case number 115676.
According to court documents, Goldshtein received notice from Cuyahoga County in August 2024 that his property’s assessed value would rise from $47,700 to $165,100. In response, Goldshtein hired an appraiser who performed an exterior-only appraisal and valued the property at $75,000. Goldshtein submitted this appraisal report to county officials but saw no change in the assessment. He then filed a formal complaint with the Board of Revision (BOR).
At a hearing before the BOR—held via telephone—Goldshtein testified about several factors affecting his property’s value: its condition, lead hazards for which no remediation costs were submitted, and its status as a rental unit that had not been rented during 2024. He also provided the appraiser’s report; however, the appraiser did not appear at the hearing to testify or answer questions about their findings. The BOR concluded that Goldshtein’s evidence was insufficient and upheld the original assessment of $165,100.
Goldshtein appealed this outcome to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court but did not request an additional hearing. The trial court reviewed briefs and considered only evidence previously presented to the BOR; again, there was no testimony from Goldshtein’s appraiser. On September 30, 2025, Judge Anita Laster Mays issued a judgment affirming the BOR’s decision.
The trial court explained its reasoning in its judgment entry: “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 court cited precedent from Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision (1994), stating that unless there is proof that a board acted without good faith or sound judgment, its determination must be presumed valid and it is up to taxpayers to prove entitlement to lower valuations.
On appeal before Judge Anita Laster Mays and concurring judges Lisa B. Forbes and Mary J. Boyle at Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals, Goldshtein argued that he was denied due process because he was not granted another hearing and claimed that courts simply “rubber-stamped” prior decisions without independent review.
The appellate opinion addressed these concerns by referencing Supreme Court guidance: “[T]he common pleas court has a duty on appeal to independently weigh and evaluate all evidence properly before it…[and] ensure that its final determination is more than a mere rubber stamping.” However, as noted in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (2025), courts are generally not required to explain their reasoning unless mandated by law or rule; whether or not they hold hearings is left largely to judicial discretion.
In this instance, judges found that “the trial court conducted a thorough and comprehensive review” based on available records—even though no new evidence beyond what was presented at BOR was offered by Goldshtein—and determined there was no abuse of discretion nor failure in independent evaluation: “Goldshtein submitted an appraisal that did not represent a complete evaluation…and stated he did not want to pay extra for a full appraisal…did not submit photographs…or any written estimate of costs.”
Ultimately, all assignments of error raised by Goldshtein were overruled and judgment affirmed: “It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.”
Samyel Goldshtein represented himself throughout proceedings (pro se). Michael C. O’Malley served as prosecuting attorney for Cuyahoga County alongside Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Edmund Tallos for appellee representation. The case identification number is 115676.
Source: 2026Ohio836_Goldshtein_v_Fiscal_OfficeR_Cuyahoga_County_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
