Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision v. One Euclid Co., 68-127

• Decision Date: 04 December 1968
• Docket Number: No. 68-127,68-127
• Citation: 242 N.E.2d 582,45 O.O.2d 325,16 Ohio St.2d 43
• Parties: , 45 O.O.2d 325 CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellants, v. ONE EUCLID CO. et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 43

16 Ohio St.2d 43

242 N.E.2d 582, 45 O.O.2d 325

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellants, v. ONE EUCLID CO. et al., Appellees.

No. 68-127.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

Dec. 4, 1968.

Syllabus by the Court

Where a parcel of real estate is subject to a long-term lease, the sales price of a fractional interest in that leasehold estate may be considered, together with all other credible evidence, in assessing the tax value of the property.

This appeal is by the Board of Revision and the Auditor of Cuyahoga County from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals reducing the assessed taxable value of a parcel of real estate from $2,372,830 to $1,296,750.

In the proceedings before the Board of Tax Appeals it was agreed that only evidence bearing upon the fair market value of the premises involved for the tax years in question was to be introduced . It was agreed that the fair market value of the premises was equal to its true value and that the percentage figure applicable to true value in order to arrive at taxable value was 39%.

The premises involved, located upon the public square in downtown Cleveland, is comprised of four parcels of land improved with buildings and is known as the Williamson Building group. All the parcels are subject to long-term leases. Prior to the date of the hearing of this matter before the Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, the One Euclid Company, which was then the owner of one-third of the leasehold interest, acquired by purchase the remaining two-thirds leasehold interest from a number of individuals and a corporation. Appellees' testimony bearing upon market value of the parcel, produced by the appellees at the hearing before the Board of Tax Appeals, was based upon the price paid as consideration for the sale of the two-thirds fractional leasehold interest to the One Euclid Company and by capitalizing at 7 1/2% the $58,100 net income derived by the owners of the land annually.

The appellants' evidence, elicited as an opinion by an expert who used the economic and cost approaches to value, set the value of land and improvements at $4,453,000.

The appellants complain that it was unreasonable and unlawful for the Board of Tax Appeals to accept the sale of the two-thirds fractional leasehold interest to the owner of the one-third fractional leasehold interest as an arms-length transaction and in using the price paid as a basis for determining the fair market value of the leasehold interest.

The appellants contend that: 'It is apparent from the journal entry of the Board of Tax Appeals that the board considered only the sale of the fractional interests in the leasehold estate as evidence of the fair market value of the entire leasehold estate.' In connection with this statement, appellants quote the following language from the opinion of the board:

'Accordingly the Board of Tax Appeals finds that the Park Investment rule to the effect that the actual sale determines the value if made under proper circumstances, controls the true value in money of fractional interests in real property as well as complete ownership transfers. It was therefore proper for the appellant to submit evidence of the sale of the fractional interests in the leasehold as evidence...