12 N.E.3d 331
Ind. T.C.2014Background
- Idris and Kamenova co-own a 2,135 square foot condo in a six‑story building with bars on the lower floors in Indianapolis, assessed for 2006 at $395,900.
- Idris sought review after the Marion County Board of Review and the Indiana Board denied relief; Kamenova alleged noise, odors, and crime diminished value and offered photos, a fire report, a newspaper article, and surveillance.
- The Indiana Board declined to reduce the assessment on June 20, 2011.
- Idris filed this original tax appeal on August 3, 2011; the Assessor moved to dismiss, which the court denied; oral argument occurred in 2012; further facts were developed as needed.
- The Court employs a standard of review requiring proof that an Indiana Board determination is arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law, based on substantial evidence.
- The court AFFIRMED the Indiana Board’s final determination, and noted that some arguments were not preserved for review and that the record did not support a reduction across the issues raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obsolescence adjustment proven? | Kamenova showed factors causing obsolescence and loss in value. | Board required quantification of value loss and failed to accept generalized evidence. | Board did not abuse discretion; no quantified loss shown. |
| Comparability of other units established? | Similar units’ lower assessments indicate over‑assessment of Idris/ Kamenova. | Size differences and lack of individualized analysis prevent comparability. | Board did not abuse discretion; no proper comparability shown. |
| Waiver of ‘one unit multiple units’ classification argument? | Assessor misused classification; issue affects valuation. | Record lacked evidence of such classification; argument not raised to Board. | Idris waived the argument; court reviews only issues raised below. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubler Realty Co. v. Hendricks Cnty. Assessor, 938 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Tax Ct.2010) (standard for reversed Board determinations; arbitrary or not in accordance with law)
- Meadowbrook N. Apartments v. Conner, 854 N.E.2d 950 (Ind. Tax Ct.2005) (need to quantify obsolescence and relate factors to value loss)
- Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. Tax Ct.2005) (comparability requires more than size differences; explain characteristics and impact)
- Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 959 N.E.2d 936 (Ind. Tax.Ct.2011) (pro se litigants held to same rules as attorneys; evidentiary rules apply)
- Scheid v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 560 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. Tax Ct.1990) (review of new arguments raised for first time on appeal; need written findings)