Summary
In Crow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 55, 57, 552 N.E.2d 892, 893, we stated: "Appellant had the duty to prove his right to a reduction in value but failed to do so."
Summary of this case from Bd. of Edn. v. Bd. of RevisionOpinion
Nos. 88-228, 88-450 and 88-516
Submitted March 6, 1990 —
Decided April 4, 1990.
Taxation — Real property valuation — Board of Tax Appeals' decision not overruled by court when decision based upon reliable, substantial evidence, and is reasonable and lawful.
APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 84-D-573, 84-G-574, 84-A-575, 84-B-576, 84-C-577, 84-E-578, 84-A-579, 86-G-8, 86-D-10, 86-C-12, 86-B-14, 86-B-9, 86-G-11, 86-F-13, 86-C-1111, 86-C-1112, 86-C-1113, 86-C-1114, 86-C-1115, 86-C-1116 and 86-C-1117.
Appellant, during the years in question, was the owner of seven parcels of real estate ("the property") in the city of Brecksville, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
The parties agreed, and the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") found, that the valuations and the evidence applicable to tax year 1983 apply also to tax years 1984 and 1985.
As provided by R.C. 5713.03, the Auditor of Cuyahoga County established the true value of the property for real estate tax purposes at $246,820. Appellant's appeal to the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision resulted in a valuation of $229,730. Following a subsequent appeal, the BTA determined the valuation for tax year 1983 to be $492,000 and that the same valuation applied to tax years 1984 and 1985.
Testimony before the BTA established that the zoning of the subject real property was changed from single-family residential to a variety of business uses or a higher density residential use on June 12, 1981, and that the real property, except for one parcel, was designated as forest land on November 24, 1982.
The MAI appraiser employed by the board of revision, utilizing a market data approach to appraisal and a study of sales of comparable property, determined that the fair market value of the property, as of January 1, 1983, was $492,000. The appraiser testified further that the zoning change and a change in market conditions accounted for the increase in the valuation over prior years, and that the zoning change enabled the property to be developed to its highest and best use, allowing for greater utility and greater incentives than previously available. The designation of the property as forest land does not affect market value; it merely results in a lower tax rate and it could be disregarded at any time.
The matter is before this court upon three timely, separate appeals as of right, from decisions of the BTA dated January 6, 1988, February 10, 1988 and March 2, 1988. The appeals have been consolidated for purposes of briefing and argument.
J. Harvey Crow, pro se. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and William J. Day, for appellee.
The issue presented in these appeals is the true value of the real estate in question.
Section 2, Article XII of the Ohio Constitution requires that: "Land and improvements thereon shall be taxed by uniform rule according to value * * *."
R.C. 5713.03 provides, insofar as it is pertinent:
"The county auditor, from the best sources of information available, shall determine, as nearly as practicable, the true value of each separate tract * * * of real property * * *. In determining the true value of any tract * * * of real estate under this section, if such tract * * * has been the subject of an arm's length sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer within a reasonable length of time, either before or after the tax lien date, the auditor shall consider the sale price of such tract * * * to be the true value for taxation purposes. However, the sale price in an arm's length transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer shall not be considered the true value of the property sold if subsequent to the sale:
"(A) The tract * * * of real estate loses value due to some casualty;
"(B) An improvement is added to the property. * * *"
R.C. 5713.01 requires that real estate be appraised at its true value in money.
There was no evidence before the BTA of any recent sale of the real estate in question, or of any casualty suffered, or of any improvements made during 1983, 1984 or 1985.
It has been held by this court that the best method of determining true value of real property, in the absence of an actual sale of such property in an arm's length transaction, is an appraisal based on the amount that such property would bring if sold on the open market. State, ex rel. Park Investment Co., v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 410, 412, 25 O.O. 2d 432, 434, 195 N.E.2d 908, 910.
In Cardinal Federal S. L. Assn. v. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 21, 73 O.O. 2d 83, 88, 336 N.E.2d 433, 438, the court observed:
"* * * Urban real estate, corporately owned, can be assessed solely upon the basis of its value, not upon its current use." (Emphasis sic.) See, also, Park Ridge Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 12, 29 OBR 231, 504 N.E.2d 1116, paragraph two of the syllabus.
Paragraphs three and four of the syllabus in Cardinal Federal S. L. Assn., supra, state:
"3. The Board of Tax Appeals is vested with wide discretion in determining the weight to be given to evidence and the credibility of witnesses which come before the board. * * *
"4. The fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing authorities, and this court will not disturb a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals with respect to such valuation unless it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful." (Citations omitted.)
The BTA determined from testimony of the MAI appraiser that the fair market value or the true value of the real estate involved in these appeals was $492,000. This was based upon the appraiser's analysis of comparable sales and inspection of the property together with a review of the change in zoning requirements for the property.
The appellant property owner relied upon his recross-examination of the appraiser and upon his contention that the real estate had not changed since the 1979 valuation and had been designated forest land under R.C. 5713.23.
Appellant had the duty to prove his right to a reduction in value but failed to do so. R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 202, 527 N.E.2d 874, 878.
The BTA found that the market value or true value in money of the subject property has substantially increased in value as of January 1, 1983, that the highest and best use would be in accordance with the changed zoning and that the true value of the property for each of the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 was $492,000.
This court also determined in R.R.Z. Associates, supra, at 201, 527 N.E.2d at 877, that:
"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 N.E.2d 433, paragraphs two, three, and four of the syllabus. This court is not a `"super" Board of Tax Appeals.' Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 398, 400, 20 O.O. 3d 349, 351, 422 N.E.2d 846, 848. We will not overrule BTA findings of fact that are based upon sufficient probative evidence. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. Lindley (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 47, 19 O.O. 3d 234, 417 N.E.2d 1257, syllabus."
The decisions of the BTA are based upon reliable, substantial evidence and are reasonable and lawful. The decisions are, therefore, affirmed.
Decisions affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.