From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Union v. Zangerle

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 7, 1941
34 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1941)

Opinion

No. 28544

Decided May 7, 1941.

Taxation — Church property not exempt — Section 5349, General Code — Lot used for parking contiguous to another church lot containing building.

APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.

The appellant, the Congregational Union of Cleveland, is the owner of a tract of land 75 feet wide and approximately 127 feet long at the intersection of Euclid and Lockwood avenues in the city of East Cleveland, Ohio. Contiguous to this parcel is a smaller tract of the same width and approximately 90 feet long, owned by the Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church. This small tract is occupied by a church building. The large parcel is unoccupied and unused except that the appellant owner, the Congregational Union, permits the members of the Lutheran church located on the small lot to park their automobiles and place a bulletin board on the large tract. The auditor of Cuyahoga county has exempted the small lot from taxation but has held the large one taxable. The Board of Tax Appeals adopted the same view.

The case is in this court upon a direct appeal on the ground that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable and unlawful.

Messrs. Ford Reece and Mr. Ansel B. Curtiss, for appellant.

Mr. Frank T. Cullitan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Frederick W. Frey, for appellee.


The sole question presented is whether the large lot is exempt from taxation under favor of Section 5349, General Code, which reads in part as follows:

"Public school houses and houses used exclusively for public worship, * * * and the ground attached to such buildings necessary for the proper occupancy, use and enjoyment thereof and not leased or otherwise used with a view to profit * * * shall be exempt from taxation."

More specifically, is the large lot "necessary for the proper occupancy, use and enjoyment" of the church building on the small lot? The mere statement of the question would seem to supply the answer. Manifestly the use of the large, vacant lot is convenient for the members of the church located on the small parcel; but that is vastly different from finding that the large lot is necessary for the proper occupancy, use and enjoyment of the other. The appellant stresses the fact that the present owners of the two lots acquired them from a common grantor, the East Cleveland Congregational Church. However, it is difficult to attach any importance to this circumstance, especially since there was a lapse of six years between the two transactions. But the appellant further urges that by its deed the Lutheran Church acquired not only a fee simple title to the small lot but also an option to purchase and the right to use the large parcel. Again this court experiences no difficulty in concluding that these provisions in the deed are not determinative of the question of necessity.

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is neither unreasonable nor unlawful and therefore must be affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., TURNER, WILLIAMS, HART, ZIMMERMAN and BETTMAN, JJ., concur.

MATTHIAS, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Union v. Zangerle

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 7, 1941
34 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1941)
Case details for

Union v. Zangerle

Case Details

Full title:THE CONGREGATIONAL UNION OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, APPELLANT v. ZANGERLE, COUNTY…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: May 7, 1941

Citations

34 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1941)
34 N.E.2d 201

Citing Cases

Church Divinity Sch. v. County of Alameda

As pointed out in Y.M.C.A. v. County of Los Angeles, 35 Cal.2d 760 at page 770 [ 221 P.2d 47], the fact of a…