ILNews

Township assessor loses appeal

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled against a township assessor who filed a suit last year after the General Assembly enacted a bill that eliminated her office and transferred her duties to the county assessor.

In Joan Stoffel, individually and as named representative of the class of township assessors v. Gov. Mitch Daniels, State of Indiana, et al., No. 35A05-0902-CV-87, Joan Stoffel, as Huntington Township Assessor in Huntington County, appealed the trial court's ruling on the township assessors' verified complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and grant of the state's motion to dismiss.

Stoffel was elected in 2006 as township assessor and her term was set to expire at the end of 2010; however, the General Assembly passed legislation in 2008 that dictated after June 30, 2008, the county assessor shall perform the assessment duties prescribed by Indiana Code Section 6-1.1 in a township in which the number of parcels of real property on Jan. 1, 2008, is less than 15,000. As of July 1, 2008, the Huntington County Assessor assumed the duties of Stoffel's township.

In Stoffel's complaint, she sought a declaration that portions of the new enrolled act were unconstitutional under Articles 6 and 15 of the Indiana Constitution by abolishing an official position in the middle of an incumbent's term, claimed tortious interference with the contract she has with her constituents, and filed a petition for an emergency hearing on verified complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court adopted the state's findings and granted the state's motion to dismiss.

The township assessor's position is provided for in the Indiana Constitution, but its actual existence depends entirely on statutory action by the legislature, wrote Judge Patricia Riley. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Stoffel's argument that Article 15, Section 3 supports her position that she is entitled to hold her office for the full four-year term and noted Indiana caselaw has consistently established that the legislature has the determinative vote regarding the existence and duties of elected officers.

The General Assembly has the authority to curtail the duties, powers, and obligations of an elected township assessor, even in the middle of the term, and transfer those duties, wrote the judge. As such, the trial court properly dismissed Stoffel's constitutional challenge.

Her tortious interference claim also failed because there is no contractual relationship or obligation that can be interfered with, wrote Judge Riley. Holding office is a public duty prescribed by law, not by a contract. Her request for preliminary injunctive relief also failed because the holding her constitutional challenge claim was properly dismissed preempts the entry of injunctive relief for Stoffel.

The trial court erred by ruling Stoffel didn't have standing to bring her claims and the state defendants are the proper parties from whom she seeks redress, ruled the appellate court.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT