119 N.E.3d 1152
Ind. T.C.2019Background
- Petitioners Vassil Marinov and Venetka Marinova own a 3,090 sq. ft. single-family home in the Wake Robin subdivision, West Lafayette; dispute concerns the 2014 assessed value.
- The property previously had a 24% obsolescence adjustment applied in 2007, which reduced assessed value; that adjustment was removed for 2014, producing a large increase (2013 → 2014: ~26%).
- The Assessor bore the burden at the administrative hearing because the assessment rose more than 5% from the prior year, and presented a sales-comparison analysis and a linear regression/time-trend analysis based on neighborhood sales.
- Assessor’s analyses produced assessed-value estimates higher than the Marinovs’ proposed value and supported removal of obsolescence; Assessor also showed the 2014 assessment correlated to market price-per-square-foot in the subdivision.
- Marinovs submitted a list of neighboring property assessments showing much smaller percentage increases (0–2%) but did not provide appraisal-level comparability evidence or quantify obsolescence they claimed existed.
- The Indiana Board upheld the assessment; the Tax Court affirmed, finding the Assessor established a prima facie case and the Marinovs failed to rebut it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Assessor required to inspect property before reassessment | Marinovs: assessor should have inspected to account for property condition | Assessor: inspection not required in non-reassessment year; trending acceptable | Court: inspection not required; trending statutory and acceptable |
| Whether unchanged physical condition mandates same assessed value as prior year | Marinovs: no physical changes since 2012, so value should remain at 2012 level | Assessor: market changes can alter value annually; each assessment year stands alone | Court: market-value-in-use may change absent physical change; prior assessments not controlling |
| Whether Marinovs’ neighborhood assessment list rebuts Assessor’s case | Marinovs: neighboring assessments rose only 0–2%, so Marinovs’ 26% increase is incorrect | Assessor: Marinovs provided no evidence of comparability under appraisal standards | Court: list without comparability proof is conclusory and not probative |
| Whether removal of obsolescence was improper | Marinovs: obsolescence should persist; alleged defects when purchased justify adjustment | Assessor: presented market-based analyses showing removal appropriate; removal aligned value with neighborhood | Court: Marinovs failed to identify and quantify obsolescence; Assessor’s market evidence supported removal; assessment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Osolo Twp. Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane Assocs., 789 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (party challenging Board must show its final determination invalid)
- Marion Cty. Assessor v. Washington Square Mall, LLC, 46 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (property values fluctuate with market; physical stasis does not fix value)
- Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 747 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (each assessment year stands alone)
- Blesich v. Lake Cty. Assessor, 46 N.E.3d 14 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (general statements of comparability without appraisal evidence are not probative)
- Hometowne Assocs., L.P. v. Maley, 839 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (party seeking obsolescence adjustment must identify and quantify it)
- Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (conclusory statements lack probative value)