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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT