Crow v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision

• Decision Date: 04 April 1990
• Docket Number: 88-450 and 88-516,Nos. 88-228,s. 88-228
• Citation: 552 N.E.2d 892,50 Ohio St.3d 55
• Parties: CROW, Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, Appellee. (Three Cases.)
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 55

50 Ohio St.3d 55

552 N.E.2d 892

CROW, Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, Appellee. (Three Cases.)

Nos. 88-228, 88-450 and 88-516.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 6, 1990.

Decided April 4, 1990.

J. Harvey Crow, pro se.

John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty. and William J. Day, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The issue presented in these appeals is the true value of the real estate in question.

Section 2, Article XII of the Ohio Constitution requires that: "Land and improvements thereon shall be taxed by uniform rule according to value * * *."

R.C. 5713.03 provides, insofar as it is pertinent:

"The county auditor, from the best sources of information available, shall determine, as nearly as practicable, the true value of each separate tract * * * of real property * * *. In determining the true value of any tract * * * of real estate under this section, if such tract * * * has been the subject of an arm's length sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer within a reasonable length of time, either before or after the tax lien date, the auditor shall consider the sale price of such tract * * * to be the true value for taxation purposes. However, the sale price in an arm's length transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer shall not be considered the true value of the property sold if subsequent to the sale:

"(A) The tract * * * of real estate loses value due to some casualty;

"(B) An improvement is added to the property. * * * " R.C. 5713.01 requires that real estate be appraised at its true value in money.

There was no evidence before the BTA of any recent sale of the real estate in question, or of any casualty suffered, or of any improvements made during 1983, 1984 or 1985.

It has been held by this court that the best method of determining true value of real property, in the absence of an actual sale of such property in an arm's length transaction, is an appraisal based on the amount that such property would bring if sold on the open market. State, ex rel. Park Investment Co., v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 410, 412, 25 O.O.2d 432, 434, 195 N.E.2d 908, 910.

In Cardinal Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 21, 73 O.O.2d 83, 88, 336 N.E.2d 433, 438, the court observed:

" * * * Urban real estate, corporately owned, can be assessed solely upon the basis of its value, not upon its current use." (Emphasis sic.) See, also, Park Ridge Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 12, 29 OBR 231, 504 N.E.2d 1116, paragraph two of the syllabus.

Paragraphs three and four of the syllabus in Cardinal Federal S. & L. Assn., supra, state:

"3. The Board of Tax Appeals is vested with wide discretion in determining the weight to be given to evidence and the credibility of witnesses which come before the board. * * *

"4. 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, and this court will not disturb a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals with respect to such valuation unless it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful." (Citations omitted.)

The BTA determined from testimony of the MAI appraiser that the fair market value or the true value of the real estate involved in these appeals was $492,000. This was based upon the appraiser's analysis of comparable sales and inspection of the property together with a review of the change in zoning requirements for the property.

The appellant property owner relied upon his recross-examination...