ILNews

Court affirms Steuben County couple’s 2006 real property assessment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Steuben County couple could not convince the Indiana Tax Court to find that the $292,800 land assessment of their residential property in 2006 was too high.

David and Karen McKeeman appealed their 2006 real property assessment, which the Indiana Board of Tax Review upheld. In 2011, the McKeeman’s brought their original tax appeal before the Indiana Tax Court.

The McKeemans argued that the board erred in disregarding their claim concerning the establishment of their neighborhood; that it erred in rejecting their base rate claim; and it erred in concluding that their sales comparison analysis lacked probative value.

The McKeemans suggest that Indiana’s assessment guidelines provide that neighborhoods must contain the same type of properties, which was not the case in their neighborhood assessment. But the assessment guidelines clearly indicate that a neighborhood may contain properties that vary with respect to road access, size, and use type. Thus, those types of differences simply are not per se indicators of an improperly constituted neighborhood, Senior Tax Judge Thomas Fisher wrote Wednesday in David A. McKeeman, Sr., and Karen A. McKeeman v. Steuben County Assessor, 02T10-1104-TA-31.

The McKeemans did not show that the board erred in upholding the $5,900 base rate applied to their land. The administrative record reveals that the assessor introduced the McKeemans’ neighborhood valuation form and their property record cards, which demonstrated that the McKeemans’ land was assessed consistent with the established base rate of $5,900 per front foot.

Finally, the the McKeemans did not show that the board erred in concluding that their sales comparison analysis lacked probative value. The McKeemans’ valuation of 10 comparable properties failed to demonstrate that their assessment was too high and the board’s final determination explained why certain comps lacked probative value.
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT