P/a Builders & Dev. V. Jennings Cty Assess., No. 49T10-0409-TA-47.

• Docket Nº: No. 49T10-0409-TA-47.
• Citation: 842 N.E.2d 899
• Case Date: February 10, 2006
• Court: Tax Court of Indiana

Page 899

842 N.E.2d 899 P/A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, LLC, Petitioner,
v.
JENNINGS COUNTY ASSESSOR, Respondent;
Hurricane Food, Inc., Petitioner,
v.
White River Township Assessor, Respondent;
Kooshtard Property VI, LLC, Petitioner,
v.
White River Township Assessor, Respondent. No. 49T10-0409-TA-47. No. 49T10-0412-TA-56. No. 49T10-0412-TA-57. Tax Court of Indiana. February 10, 2006.

Timothy J. Vrana, Timothy J. Vrana LLC, Columbus, for Petitioners.

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Allen R. Morford, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Respondents.

ORDER ON PETITIONERS' PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

FISHER, J.

On November 3, 2005, this Court issued an opinion in each of the above-captioned cases. In both P/A Builders and Kooshtard Property, the Court upheld the local assessing official's 2002 assessment of the real property at issue because neither petitioner had presented a prima facie case that its assessment was erroneous. See P/A Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings County Assessor, No. 49T10-0409-TA-47, slip op. at 10, 837 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. Tax Ct. Nov. 3, 2005); Kooshtard Property VI, LLC v. White River Twp. Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 501, 506 (Ind. Tax Ct.2005). In Hurricane Food, the Court reversed the local assessing official's 2002 assessment of the real property at issue because the evidence indicated that the assessment

Page 900

also included the value of personal property. See Hurricane Food, Inc. v. White River Twp. Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 1069, 1074-75 (Ind. Tax Ct.2005).

On December 5, 2005, the Petitioners in these three cases filed a Petition for Rehearing, pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 54, requesting that the Court reconsider its holdings.¹ After reviewing the Petition and holding a hearing thereon, the Court now DENIES the Petition.

ANALYSIS & ORDER

The Petitioners maintain that the Court must reconsider its holdings in their cases because they "ignore the rule of law." (See Pet'rs Pets. for Reh'g at 1,13.) More specifically, the Petitioners attempt to convince the Court that: (1) when assessing real property in Indiana, assessing officials are limited to applying the cost approach under Indiana's Assessment Manual and Guidelines; (2) in the cases at bar, the assessing officials blatantly chose to ignore that law and adjusted the assessments to what they believed more accurately reflected the properties' market values-in-use; and (3) in ruling as it did, the Court has endorsed that misapplication of the law. (...