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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT