Shutter Bug, Inc. v. Kosydar

321 N.E.2d 239, 40 Ohio St. 2d 99, 69 Ohio Op. 2d 487, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 383
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 26, 1974
DocketNo. 74-208
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 321 N.E.2d 239 (Shutter Bug, Inc. v. Kosydar) 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
Shutter Bug, Inc. v. Kosydar, 321 N.E.2d 239, 40 Ohio St. 2d 99, 69 Ohio Op. 2d 487, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 383 (Ohio 1974).

Opinion

William B. Brown, J.

B. C. 5701.02 reads:

“As used in Title LVII[57] of the Bevised Code, ‘real property’ and ‘land’ include land itself, whether laid out in town lots or otherwise, all growing crops, including deciduous and evergreen trees, plants, and shrubs, with all things contained therein, and, unless otherwise specified, all buildings, structures, improvements, and fixtures of whatever kind on the land, and all rights and privileges belonging or appertaining thereto.” (Emphasis ours.)

The objects of taxation in this case are plainly “buildings” and “structures,” and appellant recognized them as such. Also, these objects are not mentioned in any other section of B. C. Title 57 within the meaning of the phrase “unless otherwise specified.”

This court recognizes that in other legal contexts a decision might be required as to whether these objects are personal or real property.

However, in construing G. C. 5322, the predecessor of E. C. 5701.02, this court held, in paragraph three of the syllabus in Reed v. Bd. of Revision (1949), 152 Ohio St. 207:

“Even if a structure or building located on land is personal property, such structure or building will, for purposes of taxation, be included within the definition of ‘real property’ as that term is defined in Section 5322, General Code, unless the General Assembly has otherwise specified.”

We hold that the Reed decision clearly applies to this case, and that appellant has not suggested adequate reasons for us to depart from that principle.

Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was neither unreasonable nor unlawful, and we affirm.

Decision affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbeet, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Metamora Elevator Co. v. Fulton County Board of Revision
37 N.E.3d 1223 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2015)
Universal Oil Co. v. Limbach
588 N.E.2d 858 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)
Rotek, Inc. v. Limbach
552 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1990)
Green Circle Growers, Inc. v. Lorain County Board of Revision
517 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1988)
Foto Fair International, Inc. v. Lindley
442 N.E.2d 755 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1982)
Botkins Grain & Feed Co. v. Lindley
437 N.E.2d 1182 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1982)
Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. v. Lindley
437 N.E.2d 302 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1982)
Bobb Bros. v. Board of Revision
341 N.E.2d 573 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
321 N.E.2d 239, 40 Ohio St. 2d 99, 69 Ohio Op. 2d 487, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shutter-bug-inc-v-kosydar-ohio-1974.