Opinion
No. 88-794
Submitted June 7, 1989 —
Decided August 9, 1989.
Taxation — Real property valuation — Taxpayer has duty to prove his right to a reduction in value.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 86-F-56.
Charles and Charlotte Zindle, appellants herein, contest the assessed value of their home for the tax year 1984.
The Zindles purchased their home at 136 South Rose Boulevard in Akron, Ohio for $35,000 in 1974. For the tax year 1984, the county auditor set the true value of the property at $56,900.
The Zindles filed a complaint contesting this valuation with the Summit County Board of Revision. The board of revision reduced the true value of the building by $11,900, and determined that the total property was worth $45,000. On appeal, the Zindles claimed that the land's true value should be reduced further by $17,000 and, consequently, that the property's total true value should be $28,000. The Zindles' major complaint before the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") was that the existence of a group home for mentally retarded people, adjacent to the Zindles' home, lowered the value of their property. The group home began operations in 1978 after the Zindles had purchased their home. Charles Zindle testified that the group home's residents were noisy and caused disturbances so that he was unable to use his back yard freely. He testified further ther that large trucks delivered food to the group home, and that this was not in keeping with the residential nature of the neighborhood. He stated his belief that it would be difficult to sell his house because of the group home. He also provided some evidence attempting to show that the increase in the valuation of his home in relation to the group home was significantly higher. In addition, he presented sales of some properties near another group home located elsewhere in the same city school district. Zindle did not provide evidence of recent sales of houses in his neighborhood.
The BTA reduced the true value of the land from $27,000 to $21,500, bringing the total value of the property to $39,500.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Charles W. Zindle, for appellants.
Lynn Slaby, prosecuting attorney, and Sandra S. Braden, for appellees.
In R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 201, 527 N.E.2d 874, 877, we summarized the functions of the BTA and this court in property valuation appeals:
"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."
We further reiterated the established principle that a taxpayer has the duty to prove his right to a reduction in value. Id. at 202, 527 N.E.2d at 878.
In the present case, the Zindles persuaded the board of revision and the BTA that a reduction was appropriate, and both boards reduced the true value of the property. We defer to the BTA's determination that the Zindles have not presented sufficient evidence to prove that a greater reduction is warranted.
The Zindles also argue that significantly lower valuations in previous years should guide the taxing authorities in valuing their property currently. However, this court, in Fiddler v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1942), 140 Ohio St. 34, 37, 23 O.O. 232, 233, 42 N.E.2d 151, 152, framed the issue as: "[t]he question, however, is not how much of a lowering in tax valuation has been made, but, rather, what is the true value in money of the property for the year of the assessment."
We determine there is sufficient probative evidence establishing the current true value of the property in accordance with the BTA's valuation.
Accordingly, the BTA's decision is affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.