ILNews

Warrick County man’s land correctly classified as residential excess acreage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Warrick County man fighting the 2009 tax year assessment of his land received only a partial victory in the Indiana Tax Court Tuesday. The validity of his 2009 assessment will stand.

Douglas G. Kildsig owned 12.648 acres in the county, which included his residence, two pole barns, a lake and 11 acres of woods. The property was assessed at $192,000. Kildsig appealed, claiming because the 2009 assessment was 5 percent higher than his 2008 assessment, the assessor had to establish the validity of this 2009 assessment under I.C. 6-1.1-15-1(p). He also argued his assessment was incorrect because the 11 acres were improperly classified as residential excess acreage rather than agricultural land. He claimed he grew trees on the land to use as firewood to heat his residence, and his neighbor’s adjacent land was classified as agricultural.

The Indiana Board of Tax Review held that the burden-shifting rule at issue didn’t apply to its proceedings and that the land was properly classified. Tax Judge Martha Wentworth reversed with respect to the burden-shifting rule determination, noting a recent decision that the rule applies throughout the entire appeals process, not just the initial proceedings.

Wentworth also held in Douglas G. Kildsig v. Warrick County Assessor, 82T10-1101-TA-2, that substantial evidence presented by the assessor supports the classification of residential excess acreage for the 2009 tax year. She claimed because Kildsig hunted in the wooded area and used its timber to heat his home, he used the land for recreational and residential purposes. Also, the adjacent land was used by his neighbor as part of an income-producing farm. Finally, she pointed out that Kildsig’s land had been incorrectly classified as agricultural land for years and she informed him several years before the 2009 assessment that his land, and other area properties that were misclassified, would be switched to the correct classifications at the same time.   
 

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT