ILNews

COA affirms judgment in property-tax dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals released an opinion today dealing with a topic that gives many homeowners headaches - property taxes. The appellate court held as a matter of law regardless of when the assessment of the real property was actually completed and the tax statements issued, the March 1 statutory assessment date controls the operation and effect of a tax provision in a real-estate purchase agreement.

In Van Prooyen Builders Inc. v. Earl L. Lambert Jr. and Mildred Lambert, No. 45A04-0811-CV-662, Van Prooyen Builders appealed the trial court's monetary judgment in favor of the Lamberts for real-property taxes owed under their real-estate purchase agreement, in which the Lamberts closed on their home July 6, 2006. The tax provision of the agreement specified who would be responsible for what taxes and stated all real-estate taxes assessed against the property after closing shall be paid by the buyer, regardless of any reassessment.

The parties disputed whether, because of the "late" assessment of real property in Lake County, their agreement required the proration of 2006 taxes payable in 2007. At the time of the closing, the county hadn't assessed the property for 2006 taxes, and the Lamberts didn't receive credit for any part of those taxes.

They sought more than $1,500 from Van Prooyen or the property's tax liability prorated from Jan. 1 to July 5, 2006. The trial judge ruled in favor of the Lamberts, finding the tax provision in the agreement was contrary to public policy and void.

The Court of Appeals noted that many counties have experienced delays in the implementation of the new trending assessment system, which has caused uncertainty and inconveniences in the payment of their real estate taxes. Based on Indiana statute, March 1 of each year the state acquires a lien against taxable real property, even if the tax amount is unknown, wrote Judge Edward Najam.

But the fact the lien amount is unknown on the date of closing doesn't abrogate the statute and doesn't preclude the parties from contracting to allocate responsibility for the unknown tax liability between the buyer and seller, he wrote.

Even though Van Prooyen was personally liable for the 2006 taxes payable in 2007, the statute also allows for agreement to other terms in a contract, which is what the parties attempted to do within the tax provision.

The first two sentences of the tax provision are unambiguous; however, the last portion dealing with all real-estate taxes assessed after closing shall be paid by the buyer disregards the statutory definition of "assessment date" and conflicts with the two previous statements in the provision, wrote the judge. Because the parties didn't define "assessment date" in the agreement to mean the actual assessment date, the only date of relevance is the date provided in statute.

The tax provision's last sentence means the Lamberts would be responsible for satisfying any tax liens against the property that attached after they acquired the title, Judge Najam wrote in affirming the trial court judgment.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT