COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67681 MARK R. WEISS : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION BOARD OF REVISION : : Defendant-appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 11, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. 255740 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee: JON R. BURNEY, ESQ. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. BURNEY & HERTHNECK, CO. L.P.A. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 160 Plaza West Building TIMOTHY J. KOLLIN, ESQ. 20220 Center Ridge Road 1200 Ontario Street Rocky River, Ohio 44116 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - DYKE, J.: Appellant filed a complaint with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision contesting the valuation of his commercial property, an office building, for the year 1991. The Rocky River Board of Education filed a counter-claim to appellant's complaint. The Board of Revision held a hearing on July 8, 1993. Appellant submitted his own description and opinion of value to the board as evidence, without a current appraisal. Appellant also presented statistics on comparable office buildings located in the vicinity of his own property, to prove that the valuation of his property was excessive. The Board issued a decision, neither reducing nor increasing the valuation of the property, but affirming the original assessment. The comments contained in the transcript of the hearing indicate that the Board of Revision based its decision upon appellant's testimony, the market, its own research and upon finding insufficient evidence to support a decrease in the property's valuation. Upon appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, the Board's decision was affirmed. The court reviewed the evidence contained in the record, but no additional evidence was submitted. Appellant appeals in a timely manner from the court's affirmance, asserting one assignment of error. - 3 - I THE TRIAL COURT, IN ITS DECISION DE NOVO, ON THE ISSUE OF PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION BASED STRICTLY ON EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF REVISION, CONFIRMING THE BOARD OF REVISION'S DECISION, THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED AT $1,480,820.00 IS NOT SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE, PROBATIVE, OR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE RECORD BEFORE THE BOARD OF REVISION AND THEREFORE IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Appellant argues that the trial court could not have independently weighed all the evidence and still make the decision to affirm the Board of Revision's decision. Appellant complains that the appellee's documentation was insufficient to support the affirmance. Appellant's argument is not well taken. Although no further evidence was presented to the Court of Common Pleas, that court is not required to place any deference upon the findings and decision of the Board of Revision. The Court of Common Pleas is not required to conduct an independent proceeding, but should reach its own decision. Park Ridge Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. Revision (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 12, paragraph one of the syllabus. Furthermore, "the judgment of the trial court shall not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion." Black v. Bd. of Revision (1985), 16 Ohio St.3d 11, paragraph one of the syllabus. Appellant did not include in the evidence he presented to the Board of Revision any appraisal of the property, other than his own. Appellant's own analysis used the income approach to establish a fair market value. It is well settled law that the Board of Tax Appeals is given wide discretion to accept or reject - 4 - the valuations based upon the proposed evidence. Cardinal Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. In this instance the Court of Common Pleas was the court chosen by appellant to review the Board of Revision's ruling. Acting in the same capacity as the Board of Tax Appeals, the Court of Common Pleas had before it the documents relied upon by appellant and is entitled to the same amount of deference which would be accorded to the Board of Tax Appeals. R.C. 5717.05, which gives the Court of Common Pleas the authority to hear direct appeals from county boards of revision, also gives parties the right to "appeal from the judgment of the court on the questions of law as in other cases." The trial judge based its decision upon the evidence in the record, which the Board of Revision found was insufficient to support a decrease in the valuation. We agree that the court's decision to affirm the Board's ruling based upon the documents supplied by appellant was reasonable. We can not find that the judge's affirmance was an abuse of discretion. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. The lower court's ruling is affirmed. - 5 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. SPELLACY, J., AND NUGENT, J., CONCUR ANN DYKE JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, .