Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Lucas County Bd. of Revision, 74-9

Decision Date04 December 1974
Docket NumberNo. 74-9,74-9
Citation320 N.E.2d 658,40 Ohio St.2d 61,69 O.O.2d 353
Parties, 69 O.O.2d 353 JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., Appellant, v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, Appellee, et al.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

In an appeal under R.C. 5717.05, from a decision of a county board of revision concerning the taxable value of real property, the Court of Common Pleas has a duty to determine the correct taxable value of the real property, and in so doing the court may find a value lower than that originally asserted by the taxpayer in his complaint.

For the tax year commencing January 1, 1970, appellant's realty and buildings, located in Toledo, were assessed by appellee Lucas County Auditor at a tax valuation of $346,340. Objecting to the valuation, appellant executed a 'complaint as to the assessment of real property,' pursuant to R.C. 5715.19, and listed thereon the 'current assessed value' of $346,340 and the 'taxable value claimed' as $210,580. This complaint was filed prior to appellant receiving a valuation report from its appraiser.

After a hearing, appellee Lucas County Board of Revision upheld the auditor's valuation.

Appellant appealed that decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County under R.C. 5717.05. The Court of Common Pleas, after a trial de novo, determined that the fair market valuation for the subject property was $325,000. Applying the tax valuation rate of 36 percent to that figure renders a taxable value of $117,000, as compared to $346,340 assessed by the auditor, and $210,580 initially claimed by the appellant.

Upon appeal, appellees urged one assignment of error in the Court of Appeals, namely: that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence because the taxpayer's appraiser had valued the property as of mid-1972, rather than the January 1, 1970, valuation date.

The Court of Appeals rejected that argument, holding that the taxpayer's appraiser had explained that his opinion of fair market value 'was related to January 1970.'

However, the court, sua sponte, raised the significance of appellant's initial claim of $210,580 as the taxable value. The court ruled that appellant's complaint to the board of revision was 'a pleading in the case,' that the averment of $210,580 was 'an admission against Jones and Laughlin,' and that appellant had 'judicially and conclusively admitted that its real estate in question has a 1970 tax value of no less than $210,580.00 the equivalent of a market value of $585,000.00.' Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to allowance of appellant's motion to certify the record.

Kurfess, Williamson & Cheetwood, and Gale Williamson, Bowling Green, for appellant.

Richard A. Cohen, Toledo, for appellees.

WILLIAM B. BROWN, Justice.

The question presented is whether the Court of Common Pleas, in an appeal under R.C. 5717.05, may determine a taxable value for real property which is lower than that claimed by the taxpayer in his initial complaint.

R.C. 5717.05, in pertinent part, provides:

'(Upon appeal) the court may hear the appeal on the record and the evidence thus submitted, or it may hear and consider evidence in addition thereto. It shall determine the taxable value of the property whose valuation * * * for taxation by the county board of revision is complained of * * * and shall certify its judgment to the auditor, who shall correct the tax list and duplicate as required by such judgment.' (Emphasis ours.)

In this case, the Court of Common Pleas heard the appeal on the record and on additional evidence (viz, the testimony and report of appellant's appraiser which was not available to appellant prior to its preparing and filing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Sapina v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 2012–0883.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 16 Julio 2013
    ...are none save the judicial requirement that the determination be supported by the evidence.” Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 40 Ohio St.2d 61, 63, 320 N.E.2d 658 (1974), cited with approval in Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision, 80 Ohio St.3d......
  • 2195 Riverside Drive, LLC v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 27 Enero 2015
    ...are none save the judicial requirement that the determination be supported by the evidence.” Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision, 40 Ohio St.2d 61, 63, 320 N.E.2d 658 (1974). “There is no requirement that the value of the property, as determined by the board of revisi......
  • Raimonde v. Van Vlerah
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 2 Abril 1975
    ...15 allows amendments to pleadings when justice requires or when necessary to conform to the evidence. Jones & Laughlin Steel v. Bd. of Revision (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 61, 320 N.E.2d 658. Experience under F.R.C.P. 54(c) has been similar. Wright, in his treatise, Law of Federal Courts (2 Ed.),......
  • Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Lake County Bd. of Revision
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 7 Enero 1998
    ...the board of revision, must match the opinion of value set forth in the complaint. In Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 61, 69 O.O.2d 353, 320 N.E.2d 658, this court considered whether in an appeal to a court of common pleas (in lieu of an appe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT