Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: STEVE CARTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA MATTHEW R. NICHOLSON KEVIN D. SHEPHERD DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL Indianapolis, IN _____________________________________________________________________

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

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
_____________________________________________________________________ ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 71T10-0704-SC-21 ) INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW, ) ) Respondent. ) _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE AND PETITIONER'S MOTIONS TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT NOT FOR PUBLICATION September 24, 2007 FISHER, J. Raymond L. Curtis (Curtis) appeals from five final determinations of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board) valuing his real property for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 tax years (years at issue). The matter is currently before the Court on the Indiana Board's motions to dismiss and strike and Curtis's motions to amend and supplement. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Curtis owns two parcels of land in Calumet Township, Lake County, Indiana. For the years at issue, the Calumet Township Assessor (Assessor) valued these parcels at RAYMOND L. CURTIS,

$40,500. Believing that the assessments were too high, Curtis appealed them first to the Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA) and then to the Indiana Board. appeals. On April 9, 2007, Curtis filed an original tax appeal. Curtis's verified petition (Petition) named the Indiana Board as the respondent and elected small claims status. On May 11, 2007, the Indiana Board moved to dismiss Curtis's appeal pursuant to Indiana Trial Rules 12(B)(1), (5), and (6) (motion to dismiss #1). On June 10, 2007, Curtis filed two amended petitions for judicial review and therein moved to amend and supplement his Petition. 1 On June 25, 2007, the Indiana Board moved to strike both of Curtis's amended petitions. On July 18, 2007, the Indiana Board moved to dismiss Curtis's appeal for failure to prosecute (motion to dismiss #2). On July 27, 2007, the Court conducted one hearing on all of these motions. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION The Indiana Board has moved to dismiss Curtis's appeal on various grounds. Each of those grounds will be discussed in turn. I. Failure to Name the Proper Party The Indiana Board first asserts that Curtis's appeal should be dismissed pursuant to Indiana Trial Rules 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) because he failed to name the proper parties as respondents in his Petition. More specifically, the Indiana Board claims that Specifically, Curtis sought to amend his original Petition by adding the Lake County Assessor, the Lake County Auditor, and the Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals as respondents. Curtis also sought to supplement his original Petition with additional information with respect to his appeal.
1

Both the PTABOA and the Indiana Board denied each of Curtis's

2

this Court lacks jurisdiction over Curtis's appeal because he named the Indiana Board as the respondent instead of naming either the Assessor or the PTABOA, as required by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (AOPA) and Tax Court Rule 4(B). (See Mot. to Dismiss #1

Download Raymond L. Curtis v. Indiana Board of Tax Review.pdf

Indiana Law