ILNews

Board did not abuse discretion in finding assessor’s appraisal more persuasive

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Noting that determining the assessed value of a property is not an exact science, the Indiana Tax Court rejected a property owner’s assertion that the county assessor’s appraisal was improperly given greater weight.  

In Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC v Assessor, Benton County, Indiana, 49T10-1008-TA-42, the Tax Court affirmed the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination in upholding the real property assessments of Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC.   

For the 2008 tax year, the Benton County assessor assigned property owned by Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC a total assessed value of $639,800. Millennium believed the assessments were too high and sought review first with the Benton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and then the IBTR.

At the IBTR hearing, Millennium offered its appraisal estimated the value of the property at $325,000 as of March 1, 2008, and stated that the property was sold in December 2003 for $182,000. Also, the petitioner presented an Asset Purchase Agreement showing that it purchased its property for $193,817 on June 30, 2008.

The assessor presented an appraisal which valued the property at $640,000 as of Jan. 10, 2007.

After the IBTR upheld the assessment in July 2010, Millennium appealed on two grounds. First, Millennium claims the IBTR ignored its December 2003 sales evidence and improperly discounted its June 2008 sales evidence. Second, Millennium claims the IBTR erred in assigning greater weight to the assessor’s appraisal.

On the first claim, the Tax Court found that Millennium did not show that the IBTR erred with respect to the December 2003 sales evidence claim. Also Millennium’s June 2008 sales evidence does not probatively demonstrate that its 2008 assessments were incorrect.

On the second claim, the court ruled that the IBTR did not abuse its discretion in finding the assessor’s appraisal more persuasive than Millennium’s appraisal despite their differences.

Specifically, the court rejected the argument that the assessor’s appraisal utilized an improper assessment standard in estimating the value of Millennium property. The court also found Millennium’s argument unpersuasive that the IBTR should have determined that its appraisal better reflected the value of its property.


 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT