Monroe County Assessor v. SCP 2002 E19 LLC 6697, a/k/a CVS 6697-02
77 N.E.3d 270
| Ind. T.C. | 2017Background
- Subject property: 10,800 sq. ft. CVS on 1.97 acres in Bloomington, Indiana; assessments challenged for tax years 2007–2013.
- Assessor’s appraiser (Johnson Report) used cost and income approaches (local data) and concluded values ~ $2.9–3.1M per year.
- CVS’s appraiser (Coers Report) rejected cost approach, used sales-comparison and income approaches (national, regional, local data) and concluded values ~$1.75–2.04M per year.
- Assessor submitted a third-party review (Tillema Review) criticizing Coers for not using cost approach and for relying on non-comparable properties.
- Indiana Board found Coers’ income-approach valuations to be the best evidence and set lower assessed values for each year; Board gave no weight to Coers’ sales approach because it relied on vacant comparables prohibited by I.C. § 6-1.1-4-44(d)(1).
- Assessor appealed to Indiana Tax Court arguing (1) Board applied wrong market value-in-use standard and (2) Coers’ income approach lacked substantial/reliable evidence (over-reliance on non-local data). Court affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board applied correct market value-in-use standard | Assessor: Board (via Coers) applied fair market value standard instead of Indiana market value-in-use; statutory changes require different interpretation | CVS/Board: Prior case law correctly interprets market value-in-use; statute changes did not alter that interpretation for years at issue | Court: Rejected Assessor; followed prior decision holding market value-in-use interpretation unchanged and statutes cited do not alter result |
| Whether Coers’ income approach provided substantial and reliable evidence | Assessor: Coers relied heavily on non-local comparables, offered inadequate explanations, and its income and sales values were inconsistent; sales approach was invalid | CVS/Board: Coers adjusted comparables, provided reasoned methodology and explanations; sales approach was separate and rejected for statutory reasons but income approach remained reliable | Court: Coers’ income approach had more-than-scintilla support and was not arbitrary; Court will not reweigh evidence and finds no Board abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Osolo Twp. Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane Assocs., 789 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003) (burden on party challenging Board to prove invalidity)
- DeKalb Cnty. Assessor v. Chavez, 48 N.E.3d 928 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2016) (substantial-evidence standard explained)
- Hubler Realty Co. v. Hendricks Cnty. Assessor, 938 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion and refusal to reweigh evidence)
- Monroe Cnty. Assessor v. SCP 2007-C-26-002, LLC, 62 N.E.3d 478 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2016) (prior decision upholding Court’s market value-in-use interpretation)
- Howard Cnty. Assessor v. Kohl’s Ind. LP, 57 N.E.3d 913 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2016) (definition and application of market value-in-use)