Shaker Square Co. v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 36159

• Decision Date: 09 March 1960
• Docket Number: No. 36159,36159
• Citation: 165 N.E.2d 431,170 Ohio St. 369,11 O.O.2d 75
• Parties: , 11 O.O.2d 75 SHAKER SQUARE CO., Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVISION OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 369

170 Ohio St. 369

165 N.E.2d 431, 11 O.O.2d 75

SHAKER SQUARE CO., Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVISION OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY et al., Appellees.

No. 36159.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 9, 1960.

Baker, Hostetler & Patterson and Raymond T. Jackson, Cleveland, for appellant.

John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., George W. Leddon and Joseph A. Zingales, Cleveland, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The Moreland Courts Apartments were built by the Van Sweringen brothers during the period of 1925 to 1929 and originally owned and operated by the Shaker Company, a subsidiary of the Van Sweringen Company. The appellant strongly protests that it did not buy the apartments but rather the stock of the bankrupt Shaker Company. The method of acquisition is not of importance, however.

In 1936, the Shaker Company went into bankruptcy, and in May 1949 the appellant, The Shaker Square Company, was incorporated and it acquired all the stock of the Shaker Company from the trustee in bankruptcy at public auction. The price paid for such stock (after adjustments for mortgage indebtedness and personal property) allocated to the Moreland Courts Apartments property resulted in a book value of $2,146,114, of which $465,708 was allocated to land and $1,680,406 to buildings.

Prior to an order by the auditor of Cuyahoga County, dated December 1, 1952, increasing the assessed value of all real estate in Cuyahoga County by 25 per cent (see Cleveland Trust Co. v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 163 Ohio St. 579, 127 N.E.2d 748), the assessed values of appellant's land and buildings were land $180,100 and buildings $1,567,780, a total of $1,747,880. Under that order of the county auditor the assessed values of appellant's land and buildings were increased for the years 1953 and 1954 to land $225,240 and buildings $1,959,720, a total of $2,184,860. No complaint was made by the appellant covering these two years. In 1955, the auditor of Cuyahoga County determined that the true value in money of this real estate was land $251,530 and buildings $2,884,930. In the proceedings which have culminated in this action here, the assessed land value has not been disputed. The auditor's assessed building value of $2,884,930 was reduced by the Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County to $2,110,280. Appellant contends that the assessed value of these buildings should be $1,073,050.

Appellant, in its assignment of errors, makes seven specific contentions which are somewhat repetitive and overlapping but which may be summed up as follows:

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable and unlawful in the following respects:

(1) The board disregarded and rejected the testimony of all the appellant's witnesses;

(2) After excluding the testimony and evidence offered by appellant to prove that the valuation by the Board of Revision was 'grossly erroneous and intrinsically without weight or probative value' upon the ground that said valuation carried no presumption of correctness and could be given no weight in the proceeding, the Board of Tax Appeals thereafter adopted said valuation as establishing the true value of appellant's buildings for each tax year;

(3) The adoption by the Board of Tax Appeals of such valuation figures of the Board of Revision without affording appellant any opportunity to submit testimony relative to them was an unconstitutional denial of due process of law.

Previous decisions of this court in proceedings of this type are too well known to require citation in this case. Certainly the Board of Tax Appeals has wide discretion in determining the credibility and weight of the testimony of witnesses which appear before it. After carefully examining the record, this court finds nothing unreasonable or unlawful in the consideration given by the Board of Tax Appeals to the testimony of the witnesses who appeared for appellant, as set forth in the decision of the board. The cogent paragraph in that entry is as follows:

'On the basis of the record in this case and keeping in mind that the appellant has the burden of proving that the true value in money of the subject property is the value stated in the notices of appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals is of the view that it would be indulging in pure speculation if it valued appellant's real property at a level other than that ascribed to it by the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision.'

Preceding this paragraph, the board found that appellant's professional appraiser fixed a fair market or real value of the apartment buildings in the amount of $1,100,000, and that the professional appraiser employed by the Cuyahoga County auditor fixed the value in the amount of $1,873,000. See Citizens Building Co. of Cleveland v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County, 141 Ohio St. 47, 46 N.E.2d 413. The record discloses no other testimony as to the value of the buildings.

Section 5717.01, Revised Code, provides:

'An appeal from a decision of a county board of revision may be taken to the board of tax appeals * * *. The county board of revision shall thereupon certify to the board of tax appeals a transcript of the record of the proceedings of the county board of revision pertaining to the original complaint, and all evidence offered in connection therewith. * * *

'The board of tax appeals may order the appeal to be heard upon the record and the evidence certified to it by the county board of revision, or it may order the hearing of additional evidence, and it may make such investigation concerning the appeal as it deems proper.'

The record of the hearing before the Board of Tax Appeals discloses the following:

'Mr. Jackson: An I correct in understanding that this being a hearing de novo that the findings of the Board of Tax Appeals and its decision do not have any presumptive validity and we have no additional burden to overcome?

'Mr. Sawicki: I believe you are referring to the Board of Revision.

'Mr....