ILNews

Court upholds property tax assessments of Kokomo Mall

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court Wednesday affirmed the decision by the state Board of Tax Review to reduce Kokomo Mall LLC’s commercial property assessments for the 2007-2009 tax years.

Three parcels are at issue in Howard County Assessor v. Kokomo Mall, LLC, 49T10-1109-TA-56. Parcel 20, which contains the mall and a movie theatre, was assessed at nearly $7 million in 2007, all three parcels at more than $8.23 million in 2008, and all three parcels at more than $7.4 million in 2009.

Kokomo Mall appealed and presented an appraisal completed in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice valuing Parcel 20 at $4.96 million in 2007, and all three parcels at $6.08 million in 2008 and $3.99 million in 2009. The assessor claimed the mall’s evidence was riddled with errors and unreliable. She claimed the appraisal failed to comply with USPAP because it lacked transparency and did not use sufficiently reliable data in estimating the subject property’s value.

In 2011, the Indiana Board of Tax Review found, despite certain errors, that the mall’s evidence was probative as to the property’s market value-in-use and, therefore, it had presented a prima facie case that its assessments were incorrect.

The board found Parcel 20 should be assessed at a little more than $6.2 million for 2007, all three parcels at $6.08 million for 2008 and at $3.99 for 2009.

The assessor appealed, arguing that the finding the mall made a prima facie case must be reversed. The Tax Court heard arguments in April 2012.

The assessor claimed that the board did not adequately scrutinize Kokomo Mall’s unreliable evidence, but simply deferred to the appraiser’s testimony and adopted her appraisal even though it did not comply with USPAP. But Senior Judge Thomas Fisher pointed out the assessor has done nothing more than invite the court to ignore the established rule that it may not reweigh evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses who testified before the board.

The assessor also wants the court to reconsider the policy arising from caselaw that the mere presentation of a USPAP appraisal establishes a prima facie case.

“Even assuming arguendo that such a policy exists, the administrative record in this case reveals that the Indiana Board’s ability to independently gauge the qualitative value of the evidence and select the evidence that best reflects a property’s market value-in-use was not impeded,” Fisher wrote. “Furthermore, the Court finds that the decision to hire an appraiser or submit a USPAP compliant appraisal is more likely a litigation strategy, not the latent result of a purportedly inequitable policy.”
 
 

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. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  2. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  3. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

  4. My dear Smith, I was beginning to fear, from your absense, that some Obrien of the Nanny State had you in Room 101. So glad to see you back and speaking truth to power, old chum.

  5. here is one from Reason magazine. these are not my words, but they are legitimate concerns. http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc quote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds, has issued a new "intelligence report" announcing that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) -- a 244% jump." To illustrate how dangerous these groups are, the Center cites some recent arrests of right-wing figures for planning or carrying out violent attacks. But it doesn't demonstrate that any of the arrestees were a part of the Patriot milieu, and indeed it includes some cases involving racist skinheads, who are another movement entirely. As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible." --- I wonder if all the republicans that belong to the ISBA would like to know who and why this outfit was called upon to receive such accolades. I remember when they were off calling Trent Lott a bigot too. Preposterous that this man was brought to an overwhelmingly republican state to speak. This is a nakedly partisan institution and it was a seriously bad choice.

ADVERTISEMENT