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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT