ILNews

Evidence shows outrage over property tax assessment is a case of ‘buyer’s remorse’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A dispute over a property tax assessment of a mobile home park is a case of buyer’s remorse and not indicative of an error by the Indiana Board of Tax Review, the Indiana Tax Court has ruled.

In Shelbyville MHPI, LLC v. Anne Thurston, in her official capacity as Assessor, Shelby County, 49T10-1003-TA-14, the Indiana Tax Court affirmed the IBTR’s decision to uphold the Shelby County assessor’s assessment of the property.  

Shelbyville MHPI, LLC bought a 51.04 acre mobile home park in December 2004 for $4,266,400. This amount was close to an independent appraisal that valued a portion of the park at $4.2 million.

For the 2006 tax year, the Shelby County assessor assessed MHPI’s property at $4,983,300. When MHPI appealed, the Shelby County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals reduced the assessment to $4,263,800.

However in October 2008, MHPI appealed to the IBTR, claiming its assessment was still too high. During the hearing, MHPI presented an appraisal that estimated the market value-in-use of the park at $2.9 million as of Jan. 1, 2005. In response, the assessor presented an appraisal which valued the property at $4.2 million as of Nov. 4, 2004. The assessor pointed out that MHPI purchased the park for just over $4.2 million in December 2004 which supported the county’s assessment.

The IBTR found the assessor’s evidentiary presentation more persuasive and upheld MHPI’s assessment.

MHPI appealed to the Indiana Tax Court. It asserted, in part, that the IBTR should have completely rejected or significantly discounted the assessor’s December 2004 sales evidence because MHPI had demonstrated it never would have paid over $4.2 million for the property had it known that Indiana’s re-trending process would cause the property taxes to “sky rocket.”

In addressing that issue, the court found MHPI made an incorrect assumption when it thought its assessment and associated property tax liability would remain relatively constant. The December 2004 sales evidence reflected both the robustness and stability of the manufactured home market for the 2006 tax year but also shows what MHPI believed the property to be worth at the time of purchase.

In opinion, Senior Judge Thomas Fisher wrote, “Accordingly, while MHPI’s current complaints regarding its ‘sky rocketing’ property taxes are indicative of buyer’s remorse, they do not require the complete rejection or substantial discounting of the December 2004 sales evidence.”

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT