ILNews

COA rules paying penalty doesn't nullify appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled on an issue that has not directly been addressed by statute or caselaw, holding that paying a civil penalty to stop a tax sale of property doesn’t cancel out an appeal questioning that assessment’s validity.

A ruling came Tuesday in Gordon B. Dempsey v. Department of Metropolitan Development of City of Indianapolis, No. 49A02-1102-MI-165, reversing a judgment from Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly and Judge Pro Tempore Kim Mattingly.

The case involves a property on Berwick Avenue in Indianapolis. The owner died in 2004, and another person bought the property at a tax sale that same year but did not record a tax deed. The property remained vacant and, in May 2008, the Health and Hospital Corporation determined the building maintenance hadn’t been kept up in compliance with the city’s vacant building standards. Dempsey bought the property in June 2008 and made a down payment, and an inspector that summer visited the site and saw Dempsey doing work on the house.

An administrative hearing on the violations to the Vacant Building Standards and Unsafe Building Laws was held, and despite the inspector being present to testify about the work he saw Dempsey doing, the administrative law judge imposed a civil penalty of $2,500 against Dempsey, who was not present. Dempsey appeared at later hearings to demonstrate work was being done, and he was fined another $2,500. The ALJ waived the original fine at a subsequent hearing in June 2009 and reduced the second penalty to $1,500. That’s the assessment that remained in place and was certified as “final.”

Dempsey appealed the ALJ’s civil penalty to the Marion Superior Court, but the city department didn’t receive notice of that appeal and it certified the allegedly delinquent penalty to the county auditor and tacked the $1,500 penalty on to Dempsey’s fall 2009 tax bill as a special assessment. In October 2009, Dempsey paid the $1,500 civil penalty and additional fees despite the ongoing trial court appeal of the fine itself, and as a result the trial court in December 2010 granted a motion from the city to dismiss the appeal because it was moot.

On appeal, both parties disagree about whether Dempsey’s payment of that civil penalty to prevent a delinquent tax sale cancelled out the appeal he filed earlier that year disputing the fine itself.

The Court of Appeals found no statute or reported case directly on point, but relied on provisions of Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-10(a) applying to tax appeals, which says that taxpayers must pay their taxes on tangible property when the tax installments come due even if a petition for review or judicial review proceeding is pending.

“That said, it is apparent that the concept of mootness runs afoul of the circumstances here that involve the payment of the penalty that was imposed under the housing code that enabled Dempsey to avoid the sale of the property at a tax sale,” Judge John Baker wrote. “And there is no case, statute, or rule suggesting that Dempsey’s payment of the tax bill, which includes the penalty that was assessed under the building code, renders the appeal moot. Therefore, we reject the DMD’s assertion that Dempsey’s payment of the penalty ‘on his own volition’ removed the controversy by paying the civil penalty.”

The case is remanded to Marion Superior, with instructions to reinstate Dempsey’s appeal, decide the case on its merits, and determine whether the penalty was warranted. But the appellate court declined to allow for any attorney fees and costs to Dempsey because he doesn’t show the city department made arguments that were frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, or in bad faith.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT