Zukowski v. Franklin County Board of Revision

639 N.E.2d 456, 70 Ohio St. 3d 503
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 5, 1994
DocketNo. 93-1912
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 639 N.E.2d 456 (Zukowski v. Franklin County Board of Revision) 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
Zukowski v. Franklin County Board of Revision, 639 N.E.2d 456, 70 Ohio St. 3d 503 (Ohio 1994).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The BTA was correct in determining that the purchase price in an arm’s-length transaction is determinative of true value. State ex rel. Park Invest. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 410, 412, 25 O.O.2d 432, 434, 195 N.E.2d 908, 910.

The BTA 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 Fed. 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.

Appellant has the burden of establishing his right to a reduction in true value. R.R.Z. Assoc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 202, 527 N.E.2d 874, 878.

Zukowski, pointing to the alleged failure of the builder to complete construction of the house in accordance with the contract to purchase, argued that the home’s true value should have been $85,100 on tax listing day because the additional cost to correct the defects in the house was $15,900. However, the BTA found that Zukowski failed to offer the purchase contract as evidence at the BTA hearing or to present other evidence to establish his claim, and thus he failed to carry his burden of proof. We agree.

The decision of the BTA was not unreasonable or unlawful and it is affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., concurs separately.

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

Related

DAK, PLL v. Franklin County Board of Revision
105 Ohio St. 3d 84 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
639 N.E.2d 456, 70 Ohio St. 3d 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zukowski-v-franklin-county-board-of-revision-ohio-1994.