ILNews

Court affirms Steuben County couple’s 2006 real property assessment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Steuben County couple could not convince the Indiana Tax Court to find that the $292,800 land assessment of their residential property in 2006 was too high.

David and Karen McKeeman appealed their 2006 real property assessment, which the Indiana Board of Tax Review upheld. In 2011, the McKeeman’s brought their original tax appeal before the Indiana Tax Court.

The McKeemans argued that the board erred in disregarding their claim concerning the establishment of their neighborhood; that it erred in rejecting their base rate claim; and it erred in concluding that their sales comparison analysis lacked probative value.

The McKeemans suggest that Indiana’s assessment guidelines provide that neighborhoods must contain the same type of properties, which was not the case in their neighborhood assessment. But the assessment guidelines clearly indicate that a neighborhood may contain properties that vary with respect to road access, size, and use type. Thus, those types of differences simply are not per se indicators of an improperly constituted neighborhood, Senior Tax Judge Thomas Fisher wrote Wednesday in David A. McKeeman, Sr., and Karen A. McKeeman v. Steuben County Assessor, 02T10-1104-TA-31.

The McKeemans did not show that the board erred in upholding the $5,900 base rate applied to their land. The administrative record reveals that the assessor introduced the McKeemans’ neighborhood valuation form and their property record cards, which demonstrated that the McKeemans’ land was assessed consistent with the established base rate of $5,900 per front foot.

Finally, the the McKeemans did not show that the board erred in concluding that their sales comparison analysis lacked probative value. The McKeemans’ valuation of 10 comparable properties failed to demonstrate that their assessment was too high and the board’s final determination explained why certain comps lacked probative value.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT