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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My daughters' kids was removed from the home in March 2015, she has been in total compliance with the requirements of cps, she is going to court on the 4th of August. Cps had called the first team meeting last Monday to inform her that she was not in compliance, by not attending home based therapy, which is done normally with the children in the home, and now they are recommending her to have a psych evaluation, and they are also recommending that the children not be returned to the home. This is all bull hockey. In this so called team meeting which I did attend for the best interest of my child and grandbabies, I learned that no matter how much she does that cps is not trying to return the children and the concerns my daughter has is not important to cps, they only told her that she is to do as they say and not to resist or her rights will be terminated. I cant not believe the way Cps treats people knowing if they threaten you with loosing your kids you will do anything to get them back. My daughter is drug free she has never put her hands on any of her children she does not scream at her babies at all, but she is only allowed to see her kids 6 hours a week and someone has to supervise. Lets all tske a stand against the child protection services. THEY CAN NO LONGER TAKE CHILDREN FROM THERE PARENTS.

  2. Planned Parenthood has the government so trained . . .

  3. In a related story, an undercover video team released this footage of the government's search of the Planned Parenthood facilities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVN7QJ8m88

  4. Here is an excellent movie for those wanting some historical context, as well as encouragement to stand against dominant political forces and knaves who carry the staves of governance to enforce said dominance: http://www.copperheadthemovie.com/

  5. Not enough copperheads here to care anymore, is my guess. Otherwise, a totally pointless gesture. ... Oh wait: was this done because somebody want to avoid bad press - or was it that some weak kneed officials cravenly fear "protest" violence by "urban youths.."

ADVERTISEMENT