Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor

Decision Date16 August 2019
Docket NumberCause No. 19T-TA-00021
Citation132 N.E.3d 77
Parties CONVENTION HEADQUARTERS HOTELS, LLC, Petitioner, v. MARION COUNTY ASSESSOR, Respondent.
CourtIndiana Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: BENJAMIN A. BLAIR, DANIEL R. ROY, DAVID A. SUESS, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Indianapolis, IN

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: JESSICA R. GASTINEAU, SPECIAL COUNSEL - TAX LITIGATION, OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL, Indianapolis, IN

ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

WENTWORTH, J.

Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC (CHH) has challenged the 2010 assessment of its real property. The Marion County Assessor has moved to dismiss CHH's entire appeal or alternatively one of the six claims presented in its Petition for Judicial Review ("Petition") due to a variety of alleged procedural failures. Upon review, the Court denies the Assessor's Motion.

FACTS

CHH owns the JW Marriot Hotel located in downtown Indianapolis, Center Township, Marion County, Indiana. (Pet'r Pet. Judicial Review ("Pet'r Pet.") ¶ 15, Ex. A at 1.) On October 13, 2010, the Assessor mailed a Form 11 to CHH, increasing the assessment of its then partially complete hotel from $18,479,100 to $86,987,100 for the 2010 tax year. (See Pet'r Pet. ¶¶ 16-20.) CHH subsequently filed a "Notice to Initiate an Appeal" ("Form 130") with the Marion County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA). (Pet'r Pet. ¶ 22, Ex. A at 3-4.) The PTABOA took no action on CHH's Form 130. (See Pet'r Pet. ¶ 23.)

In May of 2017, CHH's attorneys received an e-mail from the Assessor's office, which indicated that "various properties in downtown Indianapolis were not assessed as partially complete." (See Pet'r Resp. Opp'n Resp't Mot. Dismiss ("Pet'r Resp. Br.") at 2, 12.) Believing that its property was assessed inequitably, CHH transitioned its appeal to the Indiana Board on June 6, 2017, by filing a "Petition for Review of Assessment Before the [Indiana Board]" ("Form 131 petition").1 (See Pet'r Pet. ¶ 24, Ex. A at 2.) CHH claimed in its Form 131 petition that its 2010 assessment violated "the Constitution of the United States of America, including but not limited to the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Constitution of the State of Indiana, including but not limited to Article X, Section 1." (Pet'r Pet., Ex. A at 2.) The Indiana Board, however, did not conduct a hearing on CHH's Form 131 petition. (See Pet'r Pet. ¶¶ 9-10.)

On May 1, 2018, CHH filed its first direct appeal with the Court pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(g), claiming its 2010 assessment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, its civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Property Taxation and Equal Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Indiana's Constitution, and Indiana's market value-in-use standard. See Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cty. Assessor (Convention Headquarters I ), 119 N.E.3d 245, 246-47 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019). On January 25, 2019, the Court dismissed CHH's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding it was filed before the maximum time for the Indiana Board to give notice of its final determination elapsed. See id. at 250. As a result, the matter was remanded to the Indiana Board for action consistent with the Court's opinion. Id.

On March 1, 2019, CHH filed its second direct appeal with the Court claiming, among other things, that its 2010 assessment violated the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as its civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cty. Assessor (Convention Headquarters II ), 126 N.E.3d 80, 81 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019). On May 22, 2019, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because CHH had once again filed the appeal before the maximum time for the Indiana Board to give notice of its final determination elapsed. See id. at 82-84. Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter to the Indiana Board for action consistent with its opinion. See id. at 84.

On June 28, 2019, after the maximum time for the Indiana Board to give notice of its final determination elapsed, CHH filed its third direct appeal with the Court. (See Pet'r Pet. ¶¶ 11, 13.) CHH's third direct appeal alleged, just as its first and second direct appeals, that the 2010 assessment of its real property violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, its civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ( "1983 Claim"), the Property Taxation and Equal Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Indiana's Constitution, and Indiana's market value-in-use standard. (See, e.g., Pet'r Pet. ¶¶ 44-96.) On July 18, 2019, the Assessor filed a Motion to Dismiss. On August 5, 2019, after the matter was fully briefed, the Court took the Assessor's Motion under advisement. Additional facts will be supplied when necessary.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The Assessor maintains that CHH's appeal should be dismissed "for [various] procedural failures[.]" (Resp't Mot. Dismiss.) More specifically, the Assessor asks the Court to dismiss CHH's appeal with prejudice because it did not include a request that the Indiana Board prepare a certified copy of the administrative record in its Petition. (See Resp't Corrected Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss ("Resp't Br.") at 2-6.) Alternatively, the Assessor requests that the Court dismiss CHH's 1983 Claim pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) because a) it was not timely filed; b) CHH failed to file a tort claim notice; and c) CHH failed to include the 1983 Claim in its Form 131 petition to the Indiana Board. (See Resp't Br. at 6-10.)

I. Failure to request a certified copy of the administrative record

The Assessor contends that to invoke this Court's jurisdiction CHH needed to include a request in its Petition that the Indiana Board prepare a certified copy of the administrative record as required by Indiana Tax Court Rule 3(F). (See Resp't Br. at 2-6.) The Assessor explains that CHH's failure to do so places the Court at a disadvantage by preventing it from "easily distinguish[ing] between an appeal brought after all evidence has been presented at trial, an appeal brought to avoid trial on the eve of trial, an appeal brought to delay scheduled depositions, or an appeal brought when a petitioner has not taken any action to move forward with its case." (Resp't Br. at 4.) The Court finds the Assessor's arguments unpersuasive.

Indiana Tax Court Rule 3(F) requires the petition in an appeal from a final determination of the Indiana Board to include a request that the Indiana Board prepare a certified copy of the agency record. Ind. Tax Court Rule 3(F). Tax Court Rule 3(F), however, does not apply in this case because CHH is not appealing from a final determination of the Indiana Board. (See Pet'r Pet. ¶¶ 8-13.) Instead, CHH initiated its appeal under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(g), which confers jurisdiction to the Tax Court when the Indiana Board fails to give notice of its final determination before its maximum time elapses. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-5(g) (2019) (amended 2019); see also IND. CODE § 33-26-3-2 (2019) (stating that the Tax Court has "any [ ] jurisdiction conferred by statute").

Neither the Tax Court Rules nor the statutory authority regarding the initiation of this appeal require that a request for a copy of the certified record be made. See, e.g., I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(g) ; IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-6(a) (2019) (providing that "[e]xcept with respect to a petition filed under section 5(g) of this chapter, if a petition for judicial review is initiated by a person under section 5 of this chapter, the Indiana board shall prepare a certified record of the proceedings related to the petition") (emphasis added) (amended 2019). Moreover, the certified record would be superfluous under the circumstances that confer jurisdiction under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(g), which states that "the tax court shall determine the matter de novo." I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(g). See also Convention Headquarters I, 119 N.E.3d at 249 n.4 (providing that when this Court "reviews a matter de novo, it is not bound by the issues or evidence presented at the administrative level") (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss CHH's appeal on this basis.

II. The 1983 Claim

As just mentioned, the Assessor also contends that CHH's 1983 Claim should be dismissed because a) it was not timely filed; b) CHH did not file a tort claim notice; and c) CHH did not include the 1983 Claim in its Form 131 petition to the Indiana Board. (See Resp't Br. at 7-10.) CHH responds that none of the Assessor's arguments are supported by the applicable law or the relevant facts. (See Pet'r Resp. Br. at 8-23.)

A. Timely filed

First, the Assessor contends that CHH's 1983 Claim is time-barred because it was filed years after the applicable statute of limitations expired. (See Resp't Br. at 7-8 (citing Devbrow v. Kalu, 705 F.3d 765, 767 (7th Cir. 2013) (indicating a two-year statute of limitations applies)).) More specifically, the Assessor asserts that CHH's Petition indicates the 1983 Claim accrued on the date CHH received the Form 11 that increased its 2010 assessment, i.e., October 13, 2010. (See Resp't Br. at 7-8 (citing Pet'r Pet. at 3-4).) Because CHH did not file the 1983 Claim with the Court until May 1, 2018, the Assessor contends it was not timely and should be dismissed. (See Resp't Br. at 8.)

Both parties agree that Indiana's statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies for purposes of determining the applicable statute of limitations here. (Compare Resp't Br. at 8 with Pet'r Resp. Br. at 9-10.) See also, e.g., Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (providing that "federal law looks to the law of the State in which the cause of action arose" to determine the statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims); accord Sellars v. Perry, 80 F.3d 243, 245 (7th Cir. 1996). The applicable statute of limitations in Indiana is two-years...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Mann v. Arnos
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 21, 2022
    ...rights have been violated." Wilson v. Giesen , 956 F.2d 738, 740 (7th Cir. 1992) ; see also Convention Hdqtrs. Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor , 132 N.E.3d 77, 82 (Ind. T.C. 2019) ("Although Indiana law determines the applicable statute of limitations, federal law determines when a Sec......
  • Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor
    • United States
    • Tax Court of Indiana
    • August 5, 2021
    ...the maximum time had actually elapsed, Convention HQ initiated this appeal. See, e.g., Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (CHH III ), 132 N.E.3d 77, 80 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019) (order denying the Assessor's motion to dismiss).In its appeal, Convention HQ has alleged tha......
  • Mann v. Arnos
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 21, 2022
    ...been violated." Wilson v. Giesen, 956 F.2d 738, 740 (7th Cir. 1992); see also Convention Hdqtrs. Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 132 N.E.3d 77, 82 (Ind. T.C. 2019) ("Although Indiana law determines the applicable statute of limitations, federal law determines when a Section 1983 claim......
  • Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor
    • United States
    • Tax Court of Indiana
    • May 21, 2021
    ...Court hears direct appeals filed pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(g) de novo ); Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (CHH III ), 132 N.E.3d 77, 81, 84 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019) (discussing the Tax Court's de novo standard of review for direct appeals filed under India......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT