Muirfield Ass'n v. Franklin County Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
In Alliance Towers, we had before us properties encumbered with restrictive contracts with the government. Under these contracts, the property owner received above market rent to subsidize the operation of the property. After reviewing tax and eminent domain cases, we concluded that voluntary encumbrances, such "as leasehold interests, deed restrictions, and restrictive contracts with the government, which the owner had granted, should not complicate the true value of property. In paragraph one of the syllabus, we stated:
“For real property tax purposes, the fee simple estate is to be valued…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hill v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1906
- Wynwood Apartments, Inc. v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Ross v. FrankoOhio Supreme Court · 1942
- Porter v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1977
3Cited by12 opinions
- Cummins Property Services, L.L.C. v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. Partnership v. Fayette County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
- Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Notestine Manor, Inc. v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.