Hubler Realty Co. v. Hendricks County Assessor, No. 49T10-1001-TA-5.

• Docket Nº: No. 49T10-1001-TA-5.
• Citation: 938 N.E.2d 311
• Case Date: November 29, 2010
• Court: Tax Court of Indiana

938 N.E.2d 311

HUBLER REALTY COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
HENDRICKS COUNTY ASSESSOR, Respondent.

No. 49T10-1001-TA-5.

Tax Court of Indiana.

Nov. 29, 2010.

938 N.E.2d 312

Timothy J. Vrana, Timothy J. Vrana LLC, Columbus, IN, Attorney for Petitioner.

Gregory E. Steuerwald, Tyler O. Starkey, Steuerwald, Zielinski & Witham, Danville, IN, Attorneys for Respondent.

FISHER, J.

The Hubler Realty Company (Hubler) challenges the final determinations of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board) which upheld the Hendricks County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals' (the PTABOA) assessments of Hubler's commercial properties for the 2006 tax year (the year at issue). The issue for the Court to decide is whether the Indiana Board's final determinations were improper.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During the year at issue, Hubler owned three contiguous parcels of land (hereinafter, "Parcels 195-1, 195-2, and 197-1") in Plainfield, Indiana. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 114-19.) An automobile service center and a commercial garage were located on Parcel 195-1 and Parcel 197-1, respectively. (Cert. Admin. R. at 114-15, 118-19, 138.) For the year at issue, the Hendricks County Assessor (the Assessor) assessed each of Hubler's parcels individually: Parcel 195-1 was assessed at $1,011,400 ($891,900 for land and $119,500 for improvements); Parcel 195-2 was assessed at $173,300; and Parcel 197-1 was assessed at $453,500 ($413,100 for land and $40,400 for improvements). (Cert. Admin. R. at 114-19.) ¹

On May 15, 2007, Hubler filed three petitions for review (Form 130s) with the PTABOA, alleging that its assessments were inaccurate because the three parcels should have been assessed as a single property. ( See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 11-13.) On January 4, 2008, after conducting a hearing on the matter, the PTABOA issued three final determinations (Form 115s) in which it explained that its review of "the Pictomery display" and its on-site inspection revealed that the land delineations on two of the parcels were incorrect. ( See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 5-10, 173.)

938 N.E.2d 313

Accordingly, the PTABOA adjusted the assessments of Parcels 195-1 and 195-2. Consequently, the overall assessed value of Hubler's properties was reduced from $1,638,200 to $1,553,000 ($1,393,100 for land and $159,900 for improvements). ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 5-10, 19-24, 33-38.)

Still believing its assessments to be too high, Hubler filed three petitions for review (Form 131s) with the Indiana Board on February 13, 2008. The Indiana Board subsequently held a hearing on the matter. During the hearing, Hubler submitted an appraisal ² valuing its properties at $1,375,000. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 80-112, 156-59 (footnote added).) The PTABOA claimed, however, that Hubler's sales disclosure form demonstrated that the properties were not overassessed.³ ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 122-23, 169-72 (footnote added).) On December 17, 2009, the Indiana Board issued its final determinations in which it explained that the totality of the evidence (i.e., the appraisal and the sales disclosure form) demonstrated that the PTABOA's assessments did indeed reflect the properties' market values-in-use.⁴ ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 72-73 ¶ 15(d)-(j) (footnote added).) Accordingly, the Indiana Board upheld the PTABOA's assessments.

On January 22, 2010, Hubler initiated this original tax appeal. The Court heard the parties' oral arguments on October 28, 2010. Additional facts will be supplied as 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). Accordingly, Hubler must demonstrate to the Court that the Indiana Board's final determinations are:

(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

(5) unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence.

See Ind.Code Ann. § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (West 2010).

ANALYSIS AND OPINION

On...