ILNews

Mobile home park's occupancy rate not enough to reduce property assessment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A low occupancy rate alone did not provide the owner of a mobile home community with the evidence it needed to get its property assessment reduced.  

The Indiana Tax Court affirmed the final determination by the Indiana Board of Tax Review in Indiana MHC, LLC v. Scott County Assessor, 39T10-1009-TZ-52. The high court ruled because Indiana MHC’s income capitalization approach lacked probative value, the Indiana Board of Tax Review was correct in determining that the property owner failed to prove its 2007 real property assessment was incorrect.

Indiana MHC, owner of Amberly Pointe, a manufactured home community, was successful in getting the Scott County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals to lower the original assessment of $5.4 million. However, believing the reduced assessment of $3.38 million was still too high, the property owner appealed to the Indiana board.

At an administrative hearing, Indiana MHC asserted that because only 85 pads of Amberly Pointe’s 205 pads were rented and generating income between 2005 and 2008, only the rented pads had value for purpose of the 2007 assessment. In addition, the property owner also claimed that about 2.6 acres of the community’s 33 acres had no value because the land, as green space, could not generate any income.

Using the income capitalization approach, Indiana MHC contended its property had a value of $1,075,692.  

The Indiana board concluded that because the property owner’s income capitalization approach failed to take into account any market data whatsoever, it lacked probative value.

In affirming the board’s determination, the Tax Court explained the requirements for applying the income capitalization approach. Namely, the property owner must not only examine the historical and current income, expenses, and occupancy rates for the subject property but the income, expenses and occupancy rates of comparable properties in the market as well.

The court found that Indiana MHC failed to comply with generally accepted appraisal principle because it did not consider the occupancy rates of comparable properties in the market. In fact, the evidence indicates that Amberly Pointe’s low occupancy rate of 40 percent was actually the anomaly in the market place.

Consequently, the Tax Court ruled that based on Indiana MHC’s failure to examine, analyze and reconcile its low occupancy rate in light of the much higher occupancy rates prevalent in the market place, the Indiana board did not err in finding that the property owner’s income capitalization approach 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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT