Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Tax Court denied a county assessor’s attempt to represent his office in an appeal before the court, citing his lack of legal expertise as a risk of a non-attorney representing others and his use of a fictitious citation.
Eric Grossman, the Tippecanoe County Assessor, filed an original tax appeal in the tax court earlier this year without counsel, challenging the denial of a continuence by the Indiana Board of Tax Review as biased and raising constitutional claims regarding due process rights and fair assessments.
After the court questioned Grossman’s ability to represent the county assessor’s office, Grossman contended that he, as the elected assessor, is authorized to represent the office because of an assessor’s tax expertise and “inherent authority.”
In a Friday opinion, Indiana Tax Court Judge Justin McAdam rejected Grossman’s argument and denied the assessor’s office from appearing before the court without proper legal counsel, with the judge writing that licensed attorneys are generally only allowed to represent someone other than himself in court.
“While any natural person may appear in court on his or her own behalf, only persons duly admitted to practice law may appear on behalf of other persons,” wrote McAdam, quoting an Indiana Court of Appeals case.
Grossman told The Indiana Lawyer now that his office knows they must obtain outside representation, it will proceed with legal counsel to request the tax court remand the issues cited in his appeal back to the tax review board.
According to court documents, the county assessor’s office shares resemblances to corporations in Indiana courts because they aren’t identified by any one person.
Corporations must generally be represented by counsel in Indiana, and so the court argued the assessor’s office must be as well.
“Like corporations, the county assessor’s office represents the entire county—its citizens and its units of government—and cannot be wholly identified with the elected assessor,” the tax court opinion stated. “A loss by the assessor affects the interests of the entire county, not just the interests of the assessor personally.”
This was made plainly apparent, McAdam wrote, in Grossman’s earlier brief, where he cited Hamilton Cnty. Assessor v. Allisonville Rd. P’ship, 170 N.E.3d 1117 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2021), a nonexistent case that appears likely to have resulted from a hallucination by artificial intelligence.
“The Court admonishes Grossman for citing a fictitious case in his brief,” the opinion stated. “Litigants have a duty to verify the authenticity of authoritative sources cited to the Court and ensure they are used accurately.”
The cases can be found here.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.