Westlake Med. Investors, L.P. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision

Decision Date14 February 1996
Docket NumberNo. 95-444,95-444
Citation660 N.E.2d 467,74 Ohio St.3d 547
CourtOhio Supreme Court
PartiesWESTLAKE 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.

PER CURIAM.

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.

MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Cleveland Metro. Bar Ass'n v. Morton
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • November 23, 2021
    ...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
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • November 23, 2021
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 2018
    ...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
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1998
    ...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......
  • 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