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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT