Columbus Board of Education v. Fountain Square Associates, Ltd.

459 N.E.2d 894, 9 Ohio St. 3d 218, 9 Ohio B. 528, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1045
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 22, 1984
DocketNo. 83-1061
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 459 N.E.2d 894 (Columbus Board of Education v. Fountain Square Associates, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Columbus Board of Education v. Fountain Square Associates, Ltd., 459 N.E.2d 894, 9 Ohio St. 3d 218, 9 Ohio B. 528, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1045 (Ohio 1984).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant argues that the valuation of appellee’s property set by the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable and unlawful for the reason that it ignores the recent sales price.

R.C. 5713.03 provides, in part:

«* * * jn determining the true value of any tract, lot, or parcel of real estate under this section, if such tract, lot, or parcel 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, lot, or parcel to be the true value for taxation purposes. * * *” (Emphasis added.)

We have consistently adhered to the rule that “[t]he best evidence of the ‘true value in money’ of real property is an actual, recent sale of the property in an arm’s-length transaction. * * *” Conalco v. Bd. of Revision (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 129 [4 O.O.3d 309], paragraph one of the syllabus. See, also, Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Bd. of Revision (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 410, 414 [20 O.O.3d 357]; Meyer v. Bd. of Revision (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 328, 333 [12 O.O.3d 305].

Appraisals based upon factors other than sales price are appropriate for use in determining value only when no arm’s-length sale has taken place (id. at 333), or where it is shown that the sales price is not reflective of true value (Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Bd. of Revision, supra, at 414).

The fact that appellee obtained favorable financing does not render the sales price unrepresentative of true value. Thus, it was unreasonable and unlawful for the board to accept appellee’s appraisal rather than the recent sales price in valuing the subject property.

Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is reversed and the valuation as determined by the board of revision is reinstated.

Decision reversed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smith v. Smith
2019 Ohio 899 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
HIN, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
2014 Ohio 523 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2014)
Kevdzija v. Kevdzija
850 N.E.2d 734 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
Cobblestone Square Co. v. Lorain County Board of Revision
106 Ohio St. 3d 305 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2005)
Pingue v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
1999 Ohio 252 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Pingue v. Franklin County Board of Revision
717 N.E.2d 293 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Jacob B. Sweeney Equipment Trust v. Limbac
598 N.E.2d 65 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1991)
Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision
558 N.E.2d 1170 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1990)
Walters v. Knox County Board of Revision
546 N.E.2d 932 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1989)
Park Ridge Co. v. Franklin County Board of Revision
504 N.E.2d 1116 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1987)
CC Leasing Corp. v. Limbach
492 N.E.2d 421 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986)
Ratner v. Stark County Board of Revision
491 N.E.2d 680 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
459 N.E.2d 894, 9 Ohio St. 3d 218, 9 Ohio B. 528, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbus-board-of-education-v-fountain-square-associates-ltd-ohio-1984.