Lentz v. Trustees of Indiana University, 30925

• Citation: 248 Ind. 45,221 N.E.2d 883
• Decision Date: 21 December 1966
• Docket Number: No. 30925,30925
• Parties: Homer L. LENTZ, as Assessor of Monroe County, Appellant, v. The TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY and the State Board of Tax Commissioners, Appellees.
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 883

221 N.E.2d 883

248 Ind. 45

Homer L. LENTZ, as Assessor of Monroe County, Appellant, v. The TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY and the State Board of Tax Commissioners, Appellees.

No. 30925.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 21, 1966.

Thomas A. Hoadley, Bloomington, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Lloyd C. Hutchinson, James B. Droege, Deputy Attys. Gen., for State Board of Tax. Commissioners, Snyder, Bunger, Cotner & Harrell, Bloomington, for Trustees of Indiana University.

RAKESTRAW, Judge.

This is an appeal from the sustaining of a motion to dismiss the appellant's cause of action in the trial court.

In September, 1964, the Monroe County Board of Review, of which the appellant was president, determined that eight tracts of land owned by the appellees, the Trustees of Indiana University, were not tax exempt under the appropriate statutes of this state. Said trustees later petitioned the State Board of Tax Commissioners, and in April, 1965, the State Board allowed the tax exemption as to six of the tracts of land, disallowed the tax exemption as to one tract of land, and determined that one tract of land was partially exempt and partially nonexempt.

On May 26, 1965, the appellant, as Assessor of Monroe County, and the Monroe County Board of Review filed a complaint in the court below in two paragraphs seeking:

(1) An appeal from the Determination of the State Board of Tax Commissioners, and

(2) A Declaratory Judgment.

The appellees filed a motion to dismiss addressed to both paragraphs of complaint upon the ground that the court below did not have jurisdiction to entertain either an appeal from the Determination of the State Board of Tax Commissioners or a Declaratory Judgment, in view of the parties bringing the action and the issues involved in the case. The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss as to both paragraphs of complaint, and the appellant has appealed to this court the sustaining of the motion to dismiss only as it applies to the second paragraph of complaint which seeks a Declaratory Judgment.

While the arguments made in the briefs are somewhat long and involved, we believe that the determining issue in this case is the question of whether the appellant, in his capacity as county assessor, has any standing to maintain an action for Declaratory Judgment on a question of property tax exemption.

In the case of Fadell, Assessor v. Kovacik, Auditor (1962), 242 Ind. 610, 181 N.E.2d 228, a township assessor sought a court review of a final determination of the State Board of Tax Commissioners. At page 615 of 242 Ind., at page _ _ of 181 N.E.2d, this court stated:

'The statutory procedure for fixing final assessments for tax purposes (Burns' § 64--1020, 1951 Repl.) is administrative in character. The township assessor is only a part of the administrative process in fixing assessments for taxation. He has no private or personal interest, and should have no interest as a township assessor, other than that which the State has. The State Board of Tax Commissioners likewise is a part of that administrative procedure. Both the township assessor and the State Board of Tax Commissioners are governmental instrumentalities, representing the State without any personal or private interests. Peden et al. v. Board of Review of Cass County, (1935), 208 Ind. 215, 195 N.E. 87.

'We find nothing in the Statutes which gives the township assessor the right to question the final decision of the State Board of Tax Commissioners, which board, under the statute, is given authority to make a final determination upon appeal, as here.'

Thus this court has recognized that the State Board...