ILNews

Marion County, Simon tangle over valuation of Indianapolis malls

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Arguments in two cases before the Indiana Tax Court in recent weeks featured wildly divergent views of the valuation of two Indianapolis shopping malls that have seen better days.

The Marion County assessor argues the cases represent far more than just determining whether the assessments of Washington Square and Lafayette Square for property-tax purposes were lowballed. In both cases, the Indiana Board of Tax Review sided with the mall owners at the time, Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group or a subsidiary.

rop-washington-mall04-15col.jpg Washington Square (left) and Lafayette Square malls both have dealt over the years with declining sales and high rates of vacancy, factors which have helped drive down their assessed values. But the Marion County Assessor’s Office has appealed to Indiana Tax Court, claiming plummeting assessments in some cases were two- to three-times too low. (IL file photo)

Assessor’s office attorney John C. Slatten seized on a finding in the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination that lowered the assessed value of Washington Square for the 2006-2010 assessment years. While the board sided with Simon’s appraisers, it wrote the methods used to arrive at the value “were not supported by his evidence and he made income and expense assumptions that seemed designed to value property at the lowest possible rate.”

“It would be a novel finding then in Indiana that a totally flawed appraisal can support a reduction of value,” Slatten argued to Tax Court Judge Martha Blood Wentworth in Marion Co. Assessor v. Washington Square Mall, LLC, et al., 49T10-1211-TA-70.

“If the court upholds this case, these are bad appraisals, and that’s the takeaway,” Slatten argued.

Ice Miller LLP attorney Paul M. Jones Jr. represented Simon interests in both cases. He said the board justified its findings, that it found fault in all the appraisals before it and didn’t abuse its discretion.

focus-malls-facts.jpg“This is a simple case that can be decided quickly,” Jones argued. He disputed that the flaws in the Washington Square appraisal were serious and said the board exercised its right to determine which appraisal was most persuasive.

“The board properly weighed the evidence and gave more weight to the taxpayer’s assessment,” he said. “It’s also not surprising the board arrived at the decision it did.”

Wentworth noted that the board also explained its rationale, and she challenged Slatten’s suggestion that the findings were “flawed in every approach.”

“You can’t look in isolation and say the board just completely eviscerated the probative value (of appraisals),” Wentworth said. But Slatten said that when presented with defective assessments, the tax review panel should have deferred to the assessments affirmed by the Marion County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals.

That board determined Washington Square’s total assessment for the 2010 tax year, for instance, was more than $36.5 million. But the Indiana Tax Review Board reduced that assessment to $9.5 million.

“This particular property is struggling,” Jones said, noting that Simon’s appraiser addressed issues from a high rate of tenant vacancy to condition issues, such as a bad roof. “I think it’s not surprising why the board found that evidence was more persuasive.”

“For this court to overturn the Indiana board decision in this case, it would have to get into the business of reweighing the evidence,” he told Wentworth.

rop-lafayette-mall02-15col.jpg Lafayette Square was sold in 2007 for $18 million to Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp. in 2007 after a tax appeal began on the property.(IL file photo)

Jones said Simon also presented evidence that the shopping center wouldn’t attract the interest of real estate investment trust giants similar to Simon as potential buyers.

Wentworth challenged Jones on whether that should have been a factor in the assessment. “Even though in reality an entrepreneurial investor with a new focus might be the only buyer you would get, you still have to meet the market value in use definition,” she said. Jones replied that while sale prospects were considered, the property was valued in Simon’s assessment as a regional mall.

Sale prices also factored into Slatten’s arguments. Simon sold Lafayette Square for $18 million to Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp. in 2007 after a tax appeal began on that property. He argued that Washington Square is considered a much more valuable property, which makes the $9.5 million assessment for 2010 questionable.

“Lafayette Square sold for twice as much, so you know the value’s low,” he said. “We need to value (Washington Square) as the value that it has to the owner.”

Slatten told Indiana Lawyer it’s unusual for the assessor’s office to push a case to Tax Court, and typically such disputes are resolved before this third-level appeal. “It’s a continuing problem we have with them,” he said of some Simon properties, “appraisals that just don’t make any sense.”

Jones could not be reached for comment. Ice Miller associate Matthew J. Ehinger, who also represents Simon in the litigation, said he could not comment on the pending cases.

Regarding the Lafayette Square case, Marion Co. Assessor v. Simon DeBartolo Group, LP, et al., 49T10-1211-TA-76, Jones said at oral argument that the Tax Court should affirm valuations of $15.2 million and $16.4 million for the 2006 and 2007 years, which represent assessments that employed a trending analysis based on the sale price.

That’s a more logical approach than the assessor’s proposed valuations that in one year was more than twice as high. “Or is it logical the alternative the assessor would suggest, that this same publicly traded group, the world’s largest … would sell a property for a 30 percent or a 50 percent discount like one of the retailers at the mall when they’re trying to unload things at the end of a season,” Jones argued.

“It’s outrageous that the assessor’s value – $36 million and $30 million – represent the market value in use when the property sold for $18 million.”

In the case of Lafayette Square, neither side agreed with the Marion County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, which set assessments at $28 million for 2006 and $20 million for 2007.

But Slatten said the sale price analysis in determining assessment value was insufficient. “It’s too remote from the valuation data of 2005 (for the 2006 assessment value) and goes against generally accepted valuation principles,” he argued.

“It doesn’t indicate the market value in use,” Slatten said of the purchase price versus the assessment standard. “It indicates what someone was willing to pay for it.”

But Jones argued Wentworth should affirm Simon’s Lafayette Square assessments that were approved by the Tax Review Board, noting that the sale was exposed to the market, which determined its value.

“If the standard is value for its use,” he said, “and you have a property that is marketed and sold and then market factors are used to trend that, then that is sufficient.”•

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT