Nova Tube Ind. II LLC v. Clark Cnty. Assessor

• Decision Date: 18 May 2018
• Docket Number: Cause No. 49T10–1708–TA–00013
• Citation: 101 N.E.3d 887
• Parties: NOVA TUBE INDIANA II LLC, Petitioner, v. CLARK COUNTY ASSESSOR, Respondent.
• Court: Indiana Tax Court

101 N.E.3d 887

NOVA TUBE INDIANA II LLC, Petitioner,

v.CLARK COUNTY ASSESSOR, Respondent.

Cause No. 49T10–1708–TA–00013

Tax Court of Indiana.

FILED May 18, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: BRENT A. AUBERRY, BENJAMIN A. BLAIR, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Indianapolis, IN

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: CURTIS T. HILL, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA, BENJAMIN J. LEGGE, WINSTON LIN, ALEKSANDRINA P. PRATT, DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL, Indianapolis, IN

WENTWORTH, J.

Nova Tube Indiana II, LLC appeals the Indiana Board of Tax Review's final determination, which upheld the assessments of its real property for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax years. Upon review, the Court reverses the Indiana Board's final determination.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During the years at issue, Nova Tube owned two parcels of land in Clark County, Jeffersonville, Indiana. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 451–59.) Together, the parcels were comprised of 29.1 acres of land with rail spurs that provided access to the nearby railroad and a 109,443 square foot industrial warehouse. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 195, 215, 616–17, 622–624.)

In 2010, the property was assessed at $2,245,900. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 452, 459.) In 2011, however, the Clark County Assessor increased the property's assessment by over 50%, assigning it a total assessed value of $4,653,100. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 452, 459, 522.) Over the next two years, the property's assessments increased incrementally, with it being assessed at $4,767,200 in 2012 and $4,767,300 in 2013. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 522–23.)

On October 3, 2013, Nova Tube appealed its assessments for the years at issue to the Clark County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (the PTABOA). In May of 2014, while the appeals were still pending with the PTABOA, Nova Tube sold the property to the Port of Indiana for $6,125,000. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 650–54.) The PTABOA subsequently affirmed all three of Nova Tube's assessments.

Nova Tube appealed the PTABOA's determinations to the Indiana Board on July 18, 2014. After conducting a hearing on the appeals, the Indiana Board issued a final determination in the matter on June 30, 2017. In that final determination, the Indiana Board explained that with respect to the 2011 appeal, the Assessor bore the burden of proving that the assessment increase was correct under Indiana Code § 6–1.1–15–17.2.¹ (See Cert. Admin. R. at 97–98 ¶ 36.) The Indiana Board then determined that the Assessor met her burden because the evidence that the property was sold in a "market value" transaction in May 2014 and that the market was relatively stable during the years at issue supported her assessment values. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 97 ¶¶ 34–35, 99–102 ¶¶ 41–46.) Consequently, the burden shifted to Nova Tube to rebut the Assessor's prima facie case. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 101–02 ¶ 46.)

In its rebuttal presentation, Nova Tube asserted that the May 2014 sale was not a market value transaction because the buyer, the Port of Indiana, was atypically motivated given that it was a government entity that already owned "the vast majority of the land in that area[,]" including land adjacent to Nova Tube's property. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 100–01 ¶ 43, 651–57.) Nova Tube also asserted that the Assessor had admitted that the May 2014 sales price did not actually reflect the property's market value-in-use because the property record cards stated that the sale was "invalid." (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 596–601, 656–57.) Finally, Nova Tube presented an appraisal, completed in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), that valued the property at $2,900,000 for 2011. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 194–280, 561–62, 644–806.)

The Indiana Board weighed the competing evidence and determined that Nova Tube did not persuasively rebut the Assessor's prima facie case, explaining that the lack of support for certain adjustments and valuations in Nova Tube's 2011 appraisal, particularly the land valuations, had diminished its probative value. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 102–03 ¶¶ 47–53.) Consequently, the Indiana Board upheld the property's 2011 assessment of $4,653,100. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 100–05 ¶¶ 43–46, 54–57.)

With respect to Nova Tube's 2012 and 2013 appeals, the Indiana Board did not state which party bore the burden of proof; rather, it stated that the Assessor had made a prima facie case for 2012 and 2013 by using the same evidence offered to support her 2011 assessment. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 101–02 ¶ 46.) The Indiana Board determined that Nova Tube's 2012 and 2013 appraisals, which valued the property at $3,000,000 for 2012 and $3,100,000 for 2013, did not persuasively rebut the Assessor's prima facie case because they suffered from the same infirmities as its 2011 appraisal. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 101–04 ¶¶ 46–53, 55.) (See also Cert. Admin. R. at 836–37, 859–60.) Accordingly, the Indiana Board also upheld the property's 2012 assessment of $4,767,200 as well as its 2013 assessment of $4,767,300. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 104–05 ¶ 57.)

On July 17, 2017, Nova Tube filed a Request for Rehearing. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 106–17.) On July 31, 2017, the Indiana Board denied Nova Tube's Request for Rehearing. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 123–26.)

On August 11, 2017, Nova Tube initiated this original tax appeal. The Court heard oral argument on February 14, 2018. Additional facts will be supplied if necessary.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The party seeking to overturn a final determination of the Indiana Board bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Osolo Twp. Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane Assocs., 789 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003). Thus, Nova Tube must demonstrate to the Court that the Indiana Board's final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of the procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence. See IND. CODE § 33–26–6–6(e)(1)–(5) (2018).

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Nova Tube asks the Court to reverse the Indiana Board's final determination, claiming it is contrary to law, unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence, and constitutes an abuse of discretion. (See, e.g., Oral Arg. Tr. at 11; Pet'r Initial Br. ("Pet'r Br.") at 15–16, 21–22.) More specifically, Nova Tube contends that the Indiana Board erred in upholding the assessments because the Assessor did not meet her initial burden of proving that the assessment increases were correct given that: 1) she failed to demonstrate that the property sold in a market value transaction in May 2014; and 2) she failed to relate the property's May 2014 sales price to the relevant valuation dates.² (See Pet'r Br. at 12–22; Pet'r Reply Br. at 13–14.)

1. Market Value Transaction

During the years at issue, Indiana defined "market value" for purposes of its property tax assessment system as:

The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the specified property rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self-interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress.

2011 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL ("2011 Manual") (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.4–1–2 (2011) ) at 5–6. The definition specified the conditions required for fair sales, including that the buyer and seller be typically motivated, without duress, compulsion, or pressure to act. See id . Accord 2002 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL (2004 Reprint) ("2002 Manual") (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.3–1–2 (2002 Supp.) (repealed 2010) ) at 10 (defining "market value"); Marion Cnty. Assessor v. Simon DeBartolo Group, LP, 52 N.E.3d 65, 70–71 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2016) (construing Indiana's definition of market value); INT'L ASS'N OF ASSESSING OFFICERS, PROPERTY ASSESSMENT VALUATION 100 (2nd ed. 1996) (stating that market value sales require, among other things, that buyers and sellers be typically motivated).

Nova Tube accordingly maintains that to establish that a sale is a market value transaction one must, among other things, show that the parties to the transaction are typically motivated. (See Pet'r Br. at 12; Pet'r Reply Br. at 10–11.) Nova Tube claims that because the evidence in this case indisputably showed that the buyer, the Port of Indiana, was atypically motivated, the Indiana Board abused its discretion in finding that the May 2014 sale was a market value transaction. (See, e.g., Pet'r Reply Br. at 1; Oral Arg. Tr. at 11.) Indeed, Nova Tube maintains the Port of Indiana's atypical motivation was manifest given its status as both a government entity and adjacent landowner. (See, e.g., Pet'r Reply Br. at 7–11.) Moreover, Nova Tube claims that the parties' expert witnesses agreed that the Port of Indiana was atypically motivated during the administrative hearing and that the Assessor tacitly conceded the point by noting on the property record cards that the sale was "invalid" for purposes of the mass appraisal process. (See Pet'r Br. at 15–20.) Nova Tube further asserts that the Assessor failed to rebut its evidence because she focused on factors unrelated to a buyer's atypical motivation, namely whether the property was sold in an "arm's length" or "open market" transaction. (See Pet'r Br. at 13–16; Pet'r Reply Br. at 9–11.) Nova Tube's claims, however, are unpersuasive for three reasons.

First, the certified administrative record reveals that both parties' expert witnesses stated that the mere fact that one of the parties to a transaction is a government entity or adjacent landowner does not in itself demonstrate that the party is atypically motivated. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 905–07,...