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, 3:27 pm
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

_____________________________________________________________________ CLERK RAYMOND L. CURTIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 71T10-0704-SC-21 ) CALUMET TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR, ) ) Respondent. ) _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ON PARTIES CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT FOR PUBLICATION March 5, 2009 FISHER, J. Raymond L. Curtis (Curtis) has challenged the final determinations of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board) which upheld the Calumet Township Assessors (Assessor) assessments of his real property for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 tax years (years at issue). The matter is currently before the Court on the parties cross -motions for summary judgment. The Court consolidates and restates the parties issues as: whether the Indiana Boards final determinations are supported by substantial evidence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The following facts are not in dispute. During the years at issue, Curtis owned two parcels of land on Lawrence Street in Gary, Indiana (Calumet Township, Lake County). Parcel # 001-25-46-0291-0029 (parcel 29) and Parcel # 001-25-46-0291-0035 (parcel 35) were both multi-lot paved parcels and were classified as commercial parking lots.1 For each of the years at issue, parcel 29 was valued at $21,300 ($12,300 for land and $9,000 for improvements) and parcel 35 was valued at $19,200 ($14,400 for land and $4,800 for improvements). Believing those values to be too 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 November 22, 2006, Curtis filed a motion for summary judgment with the Indiana Board requesting that his assessments and all property taxes arising therefrom be stricken and "obliterated" because they were incorrect as a matter of law. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 95-99.) The Indiana Board conducted a combined hearing on Curtiss Forms 133 and his summary judgment motion on November 29, 2006. Neither the Assessor nor anyone representing the Assessors interests appeared at the hearing. On February 27, 2007, the Indiana Board issued its final determinations, which denied Curtiss motion for summary judgment and upheld each of the assessments on his parcels. On April 9, 2007, Curtis initiated this original tax appeal. On June 25, 2007, Curtis filed a motion for summary judgment. The Assessor filed a cross-motion for Specifically, parcel 29 was .430 acres and comprised of six lots; parcel 35 was .502 acres and comprised of seven lots. (Cert. Admin. R. at 6, 48, 209.) 2
1

summary judgment on October 26, 2007.

The Court conducted a hearing on the

motions on March 14, 2008. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary. ORDER AND ANALYSIS Standard of Review Summary judgment is proper only when the designated evidence demonstrates that no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). Cross-motions for summary judgment do not alter this standard. Horseshoe Hammond, LLC v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 865 N.E.2d 725, 727 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007), review denied. The party seeking to overturn the Indiana Boards final determination bears the burden of proving its invalidity. Osolo Twp. Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane Assocs., 789 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003). Consequently, Curtis bears the burden of demonstrating that the Indiana Boards final determinations were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence. See IND. CODE ANN.

Download Raymond L. Curtis v. Calumet Twp. Assessor.pdf

Indiana Law