Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT, v. FOUNTAIN SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LTD. ET AL., APPELLEES.

Taxation — Best evidence of "true value in money" of real property — Actual, recent sale in arm's-length transaction — R.C. 5713.03.

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:

"* * * In 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BD. OF EDN. v. FOUNTAIN SQUARE ASSOC
(Feb 22, 1984)