ILNews

Tax Court affirms 2006 assessment appealed pro se

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although sympathetic to a mother and daughter’s plight, the Indiana Tax Court affirmed the 2006 assessment of a downtown Indianapolis condominium. The judge pointed out that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys.

Jaklin Idris and Dariana Kamenova owned the 2,135 square-foot condo unit in a building with two bars on the first three floors and residential condos on the second three floors. The condo was assessed at $395,900 for the 2006 tax year.

Idris appealed, and Kamenova argued before the Indiana Board of Tax Review in 2011 that the assessment should be $270,000 based on excessive noise, foul odors and persistence crime. She also claimed their unit was over-assessed and presented the Marion County Tax Reports and real estate listings for those units.  The board declined to reduce the assessment.

On appeal in Jaklin Idris and Dariana Kamenova v. Marion County Assessor, 49T10-1108-TA-49, Idris claimed that the board abused its discretion in finding that Kamenova failed to establish that their property was entitled to an obsolescence adjustment and in determining that the assessments of the three other units in their building failed to show that their property was over-assessed. Idris also argued that the board erred in upholding their assessment given the assessor’s improper use of the “one unit multiple units” classification.

Senior Judge Thomas Fisher noted that the record in the case shows that Kamenova did not offer any quantification or any other evidence to substantiate her claim that certain factors had diminished the value of her property by $125,900. And her evidence regarding the other units in the building did not establish that her assessment should be reduced because Kamenova did not provide any meaningful analysis as to the comparability of those properties nor did she attempt to explain how her unit was the same or different from those units.

Fisher found the plaintiffs waived the “one unit multiple units” classification argument because there is no evidence on the record that the assessor used such a classification and this argument was not presented to the Indiana Board of Tax Review.

“Kamenova’s and Idris’s presentations to both the Indiana Board and the Court reflect some of the challenges taxpayers have in understanding the complexities of our property tax system. While the Court is sympathetic to their plight, it is bound to apply the laws as written because pro se litigants are held to the same rules and standards as licensed attorneys,” Fisher wrote in upholding the assessment.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • "Thats whats Wrong with the System"
    "Pro se litigants are held to the same rules and standards as licensed attorneys,”.

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. File under the Sociology of Hoosier Discipline ... “We will be answering the complaint in due course and defending against the commission’s allegations,” said Indianapolis attorney Don Lundberg, who’s representing Hudson in her disciplinary case. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW ... Lundberg ran the statist attorney disciplinary machinery in Indy for decades, and is now the "go to guy" for those who can afford him .... the ultimate insider for the well-to-do and/or connected who find themselves in the crosshairs. It would appear that this former prosecutor knows how the game is played in Circle City ... and is sacrificing accordingly. See more on that here ... http://www.theindianalawyer.com/supreme-court-reprimands-attorney-for-falsifying-hours-worked/PARAMS/article/43757 Legal sociologists could have a field day here ... I wonder why such things are never studied? Is a sacrifice to the well connected former regulators a de facto bribe? Such questions, if probed, could bring about a more just world, a more equal playing field, less Stalinist governance. All of the things that our preambles tell us to value could be advanced if only sunshine reached into such dark worlds. As a great jurist once wrote: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It (1914). Ah, but I am certifiable, according to the Indiana authorities, according to the ISC it can be read, for believing such trite things and for advancing such unwanted thoughts. As a great albeit fictional and broken resistance leaders once wrote: "I am the dead." Winston Smith Let us all be dead to the idea of maintaining a patently unjust legal order.

  2. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  3. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  4. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT