Koblenz v. Board of Revision

• Decision Date: 16 March 1966
• Docket Number: 39415,Nos. 39414,s. 39414
• Citation: 5 Ohio St.2d 214,215 N.E.2d 384,34 O.O.2d 424
• Parties: , 34 O.O.2d 424 KOBLENZ et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF REVISION of Cuyahoga County et al., Appellees. GOLDBERG, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVISION of Cuyahoga County et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 214

5 Ohio St.2d 214

215 N.E.2d 384, 34 O.O.2d 424

KOBLENZ et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF REVISION of Cuyahoga County et al., Appellees.

GOLDBERG, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVISION of Cuyahoga County et al., Appellees.

Nos. 39414, 39415.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 16, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In a situation involving the assessment of real property for tax purposes where it is impossible to secure both the statutory standard of true value in money and the uniformity and equality required by the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution, the latter requirements are to be preferred as the just and ultimate purpose of the law.

2. When a statute provides that real property shall be assessed for taxation purposes at its true value in money and a taxpayer's real property has been assessed at an amount which is discriminatory when compared with the percentage of true value at which other comparable real property in the same tax district has been assessed, such taxpayer has the right to have his assessment reduced to the percentage of that true value in money at which others are taxed, even though this is a departure from the requirement of the statute.

These two cases have been consolidated for the purposes of these appeals.

Norman H. Koblenz and Maxine L. Koblenz filed a complaint with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision as to the 1963 tax assessment upon their two-and-one-half-story residence located at 3686 Normandy Road in the city of Shaker Heights, Ohio. It is agreed that the fair market value of their property was $23,000 as of January 1, 1963. The property was assessed for taxation for 1963 at the amount of $12,640. The total assessed value of $12,640 is approximately 55% (54.95%) of the agreed fair market value of $23,000.

The Koblenzes claim (1) that their home should not be assessed at a total value in excess of $9,000, and (2) that the assessment of their home by the county auditor was illegal because the ratio of the county auditor's valuation to the fair market value (54.95%) was greatly in excess of the prevailing average ratio of assessed value to the fair market value of residential property in Cuyahoga County, which ratio was 36%, and the ratio applicable to their home (54.95%) was also greatly in excess of the prevailing average ratio of assessed value to fair market value of all real property in Cuyahoga County, which ratio was approximately 40%.

Sarah R. Goldberg filed a complaint with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision as to the 1963 tax assessment of her store and warehouse property located at 1277 W. Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio.

Her four-story store and warehouse building and the land upon which it was located were assessed at $34,640. The Board of Revision reduced the assessed valuation to $29,790. It is agreed by the parties that the fair market value of her property shall be considered to be $42,600, which was the highest appraised value submitted by witnesses for appellees.

Mrs. Goldberg claims (1) that her building and land should not be assessed at a total value in excess of $20,000, and (2) that the assessment of her land and building by the county auditor, as reduced by the Board of Revision, was illegal because the ratio of the county auditor's valuation, as reduced by the County Board of Revision, to the agreed fair market value of her property, was 78.39% (actually approximately 70%), which ratio was greatly in excess of the prevailing average ratio of assessed value to fair market value of commercial property in Cuyahoga County, which ratio was 52%, and the ratio applicable to her land and building was also greatly in excess of the prevailing average ratio of assessed value to fair market value of all real property in Cuyahoga County, which ratio was approximately 40%.

At a hearing before Edward J. Kirwin, attorney-examiner for the Board of Tax Appeals, the ratios set forth above were testified to by Edwin Ducey, Chief of the Division of County Affairs of the Board of Tax Appeals. These ratios were not disputed in the record.

The Board of Tax Appeals upheld the assessment of the county auditor in the Koblenz case and declined to make a further revision of the assessment in the Goldberg case.

The causes are before this court upon appeals from the Board of Tax Appeals.

Samuel G. Wellman, Neil K. Evans and Hahn, Loeser, Freedheim, Dean & Wellman, Cleveland, for appellants.

John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., A. M. Braun, George W. Leddon and Thomas P. Cyrus, Cleveland, for appellees.

O'NEILL, Judge.

Section 2 of Article XII of the Ohio Constitution provides:

'* * * Land and improvements thereon shall be taxed by uniform rule according to value. * * *'

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part that no state 'shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

This court held in State ex rel. Park Investment Co. v. Board of Tax Appeals, 175 Ohio St. 410 at pages 412 and 413, 195 N.E.2d 908 at pages 910 and 911 (certiorari denied, 379 U.S. 818, 85 S.Ct. 35, 13 L.Ed.2d 29):

'It is clear that under the Ohio law all real property, regardless of its nature or use, may be assessed and taxed only by a uniform rule on the basis of value.

'* * *

'* * * It is and has been the practice in this state for taxation purposes to establish an assessed value of less than actual value * * *. This raises the question of uniformity. Taxation by uniform rule within the requirement of the constitutional provision requires uniformity in the mode of assessment. * * * All property, whether commercial, residential or vacant, must be assessed on the basis of the same uniform percentage of actual value.' (Emphasis added.)

The appellees assert that the rationale of the Park Investment case, supra, is not applicable to the duties and jurisdiction of the Board of Tax Appeals, as set out in Section 5717.03, Revised Code, but is limited to the duties and jurisdiction of the Board of Tax Appeals, as set forth in Section 5715.24, Revised Code.

At examination of Section 5717.03, supra, indicates that the rationale of the Park Investment case, supra, is applicable to the duties and the jurisdiction of the board under that section. The...