ILNews

Judge: Assessor waived objection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court denied the Jefferson County assessor’s request that a couple’s appeal of the assessment of their residential real property be dismissed, finding the assessor waived her objection to the timeliness of the couple’s administrative record request.

When the Larry and Sharon Jones filed their complaint with the Indiana Tax Court on Aug. 28, 2013, they did not include a request that the Indiana Board of Tax Review prepare a certified copy of the administrative record. Under Indiana Tax Court Rule 3, they had until Sept. 27, 2013, to file a separate request for the administrative record to be prepared.

In Larry G. Jones and Sharon F. Jones v. Jefferson County Assessor, 39T10-1308-TA-68, the Jefferson County assessor argued in her motion to dismiss that because the Joneses failed to meet that September deadline, they “have not properly initiated their action before this Court” so the complaint should be dismissed.

“In this case, it would have been revealed by the end of September that the Joneses had not filed a separate request for the administrative record in compliance with Indiana Tax Court Rule 3. Nonetheless, the Assessor waited until mid-December to raise an objection,” Judge Martha Wentworth wrote. “Additionally, the Assessor and her attorney had already had numerous communications with the Court by that point, as they had filed her answer on October 2, participated in the telephonic case management conference on October 23, and had filed the October 29 response opposing the Joneses’ motion for default judgment. Given these particular facts, the Court finds that the Assessor has waived her objection to the timeliness of the Joneses’ administrative record request.”

“The Court hereby instructs the Joneses to file no later than April 28, 2014, a request for the Indiana Board to prepare a certified copy of its administrative record in the case. In accordance with Indiana Tax Court Rule 3(E), the Joneses shall then file the record with the Clerk of the Tax Court within thirty (30) days after they have received notification from the Indiana Board that the record has been prepared. Once the Court receives the Indiana Board’s record, it will schedule another telephonic case management conference to discuss the need for additional briefing and oral argument.”
 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT