Oberlin Manor, Ltd. v. Lorain County Bd. of Revision, 88-423
Decision Date | 16 August 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88-423,88-423 |
Citation | 543 N.E.2d 768,45 Ohio St.3d 56 |
Parties | OBERLIN MANOR, LTD., Appellant, v. LORAIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A., Fred Siegel, Cleveland, and Karen H. Bauernschmidt, for appellant.
Gregory A. White, Pros. Atty., and Mark E. Stephenson, Lorain, for appellee.
In appeals from boards of revision, the BTA determines the true value of the subject property. R.C. 5717.03. On appeal, this court decides whether that decision is unreasonable or unlawful. R.C. 5717.04. In the instant case, we find that the BTA's decision is unreasonable and unlawful.
In Alliance Towers, Ltd. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 16, 523 N.E.2d 826, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus, we held:
The instant BTA decision, issued prior to Alliance Towers does not follow the principles announced in that case. The BTA's value approximates the mortgage balance, a finding which we rejected in Murray Commons, Ltd. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, one of the consolidated cases in Alliance Towers. We pointed out, 37 Ohio St.3d at 22, 523 N.E.2d at 831-832, that these apartment buildings are constructed at a cost greater than could be justified by market rents. The excessive construction costs were paid with loans insured by the federal government. Without the government rent subsidies, the developer would not have sufficient rental income under conventional market conditions to repay the mortgage. Thus, the actual terms of the agreement with the federal government do not have a bearing on the true value of the property.
Furthermore, the BTA, here, equated the property's investment value with its true value. "Investment value" is defined in the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal (1984) 167, as:
"The value of an investment to a particular investor, based on his or her investment requirements; as distinguished from market value, which is impersonal and detached."
Thus, the BTA...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. Partnership v. Bor
...proposition that "[f]or purpose [sic] of real estate tax assessment, as set forth in Oberlin Manor [Ltd.] vs. Lorain County Board of Revision Supreme Court Case (1989) [45 Ohio St.3d 56, 543 N.E.2d 768], the effect of a property's involvement in a low-income housing program cannot be consid......
-
Colonial Village v. Washington Cty., 2008-0443.
...the subsidies allow developers to incur costs that ordinary market rents would not support. See Oberlin Manor, Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 56, 57, 543 N.E.2d 768. Nor have such subsidies been understood as pertaining directly to the value of the realty — we hav......
-
Villa Park Ltd. v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Revision
...Towers, Ltd. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 4, 3 OBR 302, 444 N.E.2d 1027, and Oberlin Manor, Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 56, 543 N.E.2d 768. While there is no dispute about what kind of rent is applicable (" 'economic rent is a proper consi......
-
Sunset Square Ltd. v. Miami County Bd. of Revision
...the income approach to valuation, while rejecting the cost approach as inapplicable. See Oberlin Manor, Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 56, 57, 543 N.E.2d 768, 769. This approach to valuation, with due regard for market rent and current returns on mortgages and equ......