Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS: BRIAN P. POPP LASZLO & POPP, PC Merrillville, IN

JOHN S. DULL ATTORNEY AT LAW Crown Point, IN _____________________________________________________________________

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS: JEFFREY T. BENNETT BRADLEY D. HASLER MARGARET M. CHRISTENSEN BINGHAM McHALE LLP Indianapolis, IN

CLERK _____________________________________________________________________
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT

FILED

Dec 27 2010, 2:55 pm

LAKE COUNTY ASSESSOR, NORTH TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR, and LAKE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT BOARD OF APPEALS,

) ) ) ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 49T10-1010-TA-55 ) AMOCO SULFUR RECOVERY CORP. ) and BP PRODUCTS NORTH ) AMERICA, INC., ) ) Respondents. ) ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ON RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DISMISS NOT FOR PUBLICATION December 27, 2010 FISHER, J. The Lake County Assessor, the North Township Assessor, and the Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (hereinafter, "Lake County") have appealed the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board) regarding the personal property assessment of Amoco Sulfur Recovery Corp. ("Amoco") and BP

Products North America, Inc. ("BP") (collectively, "the Respondents") for the 2007 tax year. The matter is currently before the Court on the Respondents motion to dismiss. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 31, 2010, the Indiana Board issued a final determination pertaining to the Respondents 2007 personal property assessment. (See Petrs V. Pet. for Judicial Review (hereinafter, "Pet.") Attach. at 3-42.) A copy of that final determination was distributed to "BP Products North America"; another copy was distributed to "Amoco Sulfur Recovery Corp. n/k/a BP Products North America." (See Pet. Attach. at 1-2.) BP and Amoco had the same mailing address. (See Pet. Attach. at 1-2.) A copy of the final determination was also distributed to Indianapolis attorneys Jeffrey Bennett, Bradley Hasler, and Margaret Christensen, as they represented the Respondents at the Indiana Board hearing.1 (See Pet. Attach. at 3, 42 (footnote added).) On October 8, 2010, Lake County filed a verified petition for judicial review challenging the Indiana Boards final determination. The petition, to which a copy of the Indiana Boards final determination was attached , named both Amoco and BP as respondents in its caption as well as throughout the document itself. (See Pet.) In

conjunction with the petitions filing, Lake County issued a summons to "BP Products North America, Inc." (See Respts Mem. Law Supp. Mot. Dismiss (hereinafter, "Respts Mem.") at 2, Ex. C.) The summons was mailed to (and received by) Jeffrey Bennett at

All three attorneys are with the Indianapolis law firm Bingham McHale LLP. (See Petrs V. Pet. for Judicial Review (hereinafter, "Pet.") Attach. at 3, 42.) 2

1

his Indianapolis law firm.2 (See Respts Mem. at 2, Ex. C (footnote added).) On October 29, 2010, the Respondents moved to dismiss Lake Countys appeal pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(2) (lack of jurisdiction over the person), 12(B)(4) (insufficiency of process), and 12(B)(5) (insufficiency of service of process). (Respts Mem. at 3.) The Court conducted a hearing on the motion on November 19, 2010. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary. ANALYSIS AND OPINION "An original tax appeal from a final determination of the Indiana Board [] is commenced by filing a petition in the Tax Court and filing a written notice of appeal with the Indiana Board[.]" Ind. Tax Court Rule 3(B). With respect to those appeals, "the Tax Court acquires jurisdiction over a party or person who . . . commences or joins in the original tax appeal, is served with a summons or enters an appearance, or who is subjected to the power of the Tax Court under any other law." Ind. Tax Court Rule 4(B)(1). "Service of summons shall be required only with respect to the named

respondent3 and any other person whom the petitioner seeks to join as a party . . . [and] shall be made in accordance with the Trial Rules." Tax Ct. R. 4(B)(4) (footnote added). The Respondents have advanced two arguments as to why this case should be dismissed. First, they maintain that Lake County not only failed to issue a summons, but "fail[ed] to even attempt service[,]" on Amoco. (See Respts Mem. at 5.) Second,

Lake County has averred that at the time it filed its appeal with the clerk of courts, it also submitted a summons directed to "Amoco Sulfur Recovery Corp." in care of its attorney, Jeffrey Bennett. (Petrs Aff. of Melanie A. Duscha

Download Lake County Assessor, North Township Assessor, et al. v. Amoco Sulfur Recovery C

Indiana Law