Preview:

PETITIONER APPEARING PRO SE: RAYMOND L. CURTIS Beverly Shores, IN

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: GREGORY F. ZOELLER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA JESSICA E. REAGAN TIMOTHY A. SCHULTZ DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL Indianapolis, IN _____________________________________________________________________

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT

FILED
Mar 05 2009, 3:29 pm
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

_____________________________________________________________________ CLERK M.D. CURTIS MANAGEMENT CO., INC. ) by RAYMOND L. CURTIS, owner, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 45T10-0707-SC-39 ) INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW, ) LAKE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ) ASSESSMENT BOARD OF APPEALS, ) and NORTH TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR, ) ) Respondents. ) _____________________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW NOT FOR PUBLICATION March 5, 2009 FISHER, J. M.D. Curtis Management Company, Inc., by its owner Raymond L. Curtis (Curtis), challenges the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board) which upheld the North Township Assessors (Assessor) assessments of his real

property for the 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax years (tax years at issue).1 While Curtis raises several issues on appeal, the Court consolidates and restates them as: I. Whether Curtiss procedural due process rights were violated during the administrative process; and Whether the Indiana Boards final determination was improper. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY During the tax years at issue, Curtis owned a parcel of land located on Indianapolis Boulevard in East Chicago, Indiana. Prior to September 13, 2001, a

II.

building containing both general retail space and apartment units was located on the parcel. On September 13, 2001, the building was severely damaged by a fire. For the 2001 tax year, the assessed value of Curtiss real property was $7,270 ($2,500 for land and $4,770 for improvements); in turn, for both the 2002 and 2003 tax years Curtiss land was assessed at $33,700.2,3 Believing that these values were too

In his brief, Curtis has also asked the Court to "remove" the assessments on the subject property back to 1995. (See Petr Br. at 1.) The Court DENIES Curtiss request, as the Certified Administrative Record ("Record") in this matter indicates that Curtis filed Petitions for Correction of Error for the 2001 to 2003 tax years only. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 4-7, 12-19.) While the Record does not contain definitive evidence as to the subject propertys assessed value for the 2001 tax year (i.e., its assessed value as of the March 1, 2001 assessment date); it does contain evidence of the subject propertys assessed value as of September 13, 2001. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 80.) The Court therefore presumes that the latter assessed value reflects the former assessed value. Likewise, the Record contains no definitive evidence as to the subject propertys assessed value for the 2002 and 2003 tax years. During the administrative hearing, however, the Administrative Law Judge indicated that the 2004 assessed value of the land (according to the Assessors website) was $33,700. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 211-12.) Curtis agreed that that value probably reflected his propertys 2002 and 2003 assessed values as determined by the Assessor. (Cert. Admin. R. at 212.) Thus, the Court assumes that the land was valued at $33,700 for the 2002 and 2003 tax years. 2
3 2

1

high, Curtis filed Petitions for Correction of Error (Forms 133), first with the Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, and then with the Indiana Board. On March 14, 2007, the Indiana Board held a hearing on Curtiss Forms 133. Neither the Assessor nor anyone one representing the Assessors interests appeared at the hearing. Throughout the hearing, Curtis maintained that his assessments should be adjusted to reflect his propertys loss in value due to bo th the presence of obsolescence in his building and the various abnormalities that had impacted his land. On June 6, 2007, the Indiana Board issued its final determination in which it concluded that Curtis failed to demonstrate that his building was entitled to an obsolescence adjustment or that his land was entitled to an influence factor adjustment. On July 17, 2007, Curtis initiated this original tax appeal. The Court heard the parties oral arguments on March 14, 2008. necessary. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court gives great deference to final determinations of the Indiana Board when it acts within the scope of its authority. See College Corner, L.P. v. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 840 N.E.2d 905, 907 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). Consequently, the Court will reverse a final determination of the Indiana Board only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; (4) without observance of procedure required by law; or 3 Additional facts will be suppl ied as

(5) unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence. IND. CODE ANN.

Download M.D. Curtis Management Co. Inc., et al v. Indiana Board of Tax Review, et al.pdf

Indiana Law