Legal Opinion

Fawn Lake Apartments v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 1996No. 95-1151PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Per curiam

Fawn Lake contends that the BTA should have deducted a reserve for replacements, employed a capitalization rate that reflected current returns on mortgages and- equities, and agreed with its appraisal testimony. However, we disagree and affirm the BTA’s decision.

In Freshwater v. Belmont Cty. Bd. of Revision (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 140, 568 N.E.2d 1215, we held that a reserve for replacements was a proper item to consider in valuing real property. However, we did not mandate that such a reserve be accounted for in all cases. Here, the BTA, essentially, found that the actual expenses of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Wolf v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Freshwater v. Belmont County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  2. TBC Westlake, Inc. v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Strongsville Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. DAK, PLL v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Hotel Statler v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API