Zindle v. Summit County Bd. of Revision

Decision Date09 August 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-794,88-794
Citation542 N.E.2d 650,44 Ohio St.3d 202
PartiesZINDLE et al., Appellants, v. SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Charles and Charlotte Zindle, appellants herein, contest the assessed value of their home for the tax year 1984.

The Zindles purchased their home at 136 South Rose Boulevard in Akron, Ohio for $35,000 in 1974. For the tax year 1984, the county auditor set the true value of the property at $56,900.

The Zindles filed a complaint contesting this valuation with the Summit County Board of Revision. The board of revision reduced the true value of the building by $11,900, and determined that the total property was worth $45,000. On appeal, the Zindles claimed that the land's true value should be reduced further by $17,000 and, consequently, that the property's total true value should be $28,000. The Zindles' major complaint before the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") was that the existence of a group home for mentally retarded people, adjacent to the Zindles' home, lowered the value of their property. The group home began operations in 1978 after the Zindles had purchased their home. Charles Zindle testified that the group home's residents were noisy and caused disturbances so that he was unable to use his back yard freely. He testified further that large trucks delivered food to the group home, and that this was not in keeping with the residential nature of the neighborhood. He stated his belief that it would be difficult to sell his house because of the group home. He also provided some evidence attempting to show that the increase in the valuation of his home in relation to the group home was significantly higher. In addition, he presented sales of some properties near another group home located elsewhere in the same city school district. Zindle did not provide evidence of recent sales of houses in his neighborhood.

The BTA reduced the true value of the land from $27,000 to $21,500, bringing the total value of the property to $39,500.

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

Charles W. Zindle, for appellants.

Lynn Slaby, Pros. Atty. and Sandra S. Braden, Akron, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 201, 527 N.E.2d 874, 877, we summarized the functions of the BTA and this court in property valuation appeals:

"The BTA need not adopt any expert's valuation. It has wide discretion to determine the weight given to evidence and the credibility of witnesses before it. Its true value decision is a question of fact which will be disturbed by this court only when it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful. Cardinal Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 73 O.O.2d 83, 336...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Schwartz v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Revision
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 21 Noviembre 2018
    ...because no evidence is adduced contra his claim." Numerous later cases develop this principle. See Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 203, 542 N.E.2d 650 (1989) (based on taxpayers' presentation, both the board of revision and the BTA reduced the true value of the pro......
  • West Bay Manor Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 94-1462
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 30 Agosto 1995
    ...1364; Crow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 55, 57, 552 N.E.2d 892, 893; and Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 203, 542 N.E.2d 650, 651. In this case, West Bay Manor had the duty to prove its right to a reduction in value. In determining ......
  • Brooklyn Acres Mut. Homes, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 3 Junio 1996
    ...and reports. A taxpayer has a duty to prove the right to a reduction in value of real property. Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 203, 542 N.E.2d 650, 650-651. See Westlake Med. Investors, L.P. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 547, 660 N.......
  • Brooklyn Acres Mutual Homes, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 23 Mayo 1996
    ... ... This ... court's review is limited to the BTA's findings and ... conclusions. See Springfield Local Bd. of Edn. v. Summit ... Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 493 (the ... BOR's valuations are not entitled to presumption of ... validity) ... reports ... A ... taxpayer has a duty to prove the right to a reduction in ... value of real property. Zindle v. Summit Cty. Bd. of ... Revision (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 202, 203. See ... Westlake Med. Investors, L.P. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of ... ...
  • 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