Westlake Med. Investors, L.P. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision
Decision Date | 14 February 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 95-444,95-444 |
Citation | 660 N.E.2d 467,74 Ohio St.3d 547 |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Parties | WESTLAKE MEDICAL INVESTORS, L.P., Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees. |
Todd W. Sleggs, Cleveland, for appellant.
Rosenzweig, Schulz & Gillombardo Co., L.P.A., and Bill J. Gagliano, Cleveland, for appellee Westlake Board of Education.
Medical Investors principally argues that the BTA should have deducted amounts for the nonrealty items of the state-issued certificate of need, goodwill, and tangible personal property. We disagree.
A taxpayer has the duty to prove his right to a reduction in value. Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 203, 542 N.E.2d 650, 651. The BTA stated its reasons for why it did not believe Provencher's testimony, and the record supports its findings as to Provencher's testimony. We do not find that the BTA abused its discretion in discrediting his report and opinion of value.
Furthermore, the BTA may approve a board of revision's value if the taxpayer does not prove a right to a reduction in value. Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 336, 626 N.E.2d 933. Moreover, the circumstances of the 1986 sale of the subject property lend support to the BTA's conclusion. Medical Investors paid $3,560,000 to the seller, but Medical Investors attributed $3,360,000 to the real estate. Thus, it deducted $200,000 for nonrealty property from the purchase price. Furthermore, it paid $380,000 to improve the property. The total, $3,740,000, comes very close to the value decided by the BOR and the BTA. In light of the BTA's criticism of Provencher's total methodology, the BTA properly decided that the true value of the property, as of January 1, 1991, was $3,700,000.
Decision affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cleveland Metro. Bar Ass'n v. Morton
...Cty. Bd. of Revision , 106 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-3096, 829 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 6, and Westlake Med. Investors, L.P. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision , 74 Ohio St.3d 547, 549, 660 N.E.2d 467 (1996). Because the county's fiscal officer was presumed to carry out his statutorily prescribed duties i......
-
Cleveland Metro. Bar Ass'n v. Morton
... ... for the 2011 tax year. After the Cuyahoga County Board of ... Revision ("BOR") and the ... Schwartz ... v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 143 Ohio St.3d 496, ... West lake Med. Investors, L.P. v. Mahogany Caty. DB. of ... ...
-
Schwartz v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Revision
...not presented sufficient evidence to prove that a greater reduction [was] warranted"); Westlake Med. Investors, L.P. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 74 Ohio St.3d 547, 549, 660 N.E.2d 467 (1996) ("the BTA may approve a board of revision's value if the taxpayer does not prove a right to a ......
-
Simmons v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, 97-765
...rejected Simmons's evidence, the BTA could not affirm the BOR's valuation. We disagree. In Westlake Med. Investors, L.P. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 547, 660 N.E.2d 467, the BTA rejected the taxpayer's evidence of value and approved the board of revision's valuati......