*1 was that Lake USS's contention Conclusion illegally, the Tax officials had acted Court The decision of the Tax Court
reasoned, precisely the kind of this was part case is affirmed and reversed "illegal claim that the as matter of law" part. The decision of the State Board of 6-1.1-
provision of Indiana Code Section dismissing ap- Commissioners USS's 15-12(a)(6) designed to cover.. Id.3 peals on Form 133 is affirmed. Although presents USS a more SHEPARD, C.J., and and DICKSON in BP sympathetic taxpayer case than the BOEHM, JJ., RUCKER, J., concur.
Amoco, we reach the same result. Indiana concurs result. 6-1.1-15-12(a)(6) Code 50, Reg
Indiana Administrative Code Title
ulation authorize 4.2-3-12 the use of Form adjustments
133 to obtain to assessments taxes, tax refunds where the law,
as a matter of have been determined Amoco, illegal. BP 820 N.E.2d at STATE of Indiana ex rel. The ATTOR they 1236-37. But are not available "to NEY GENERAL of the challenge methodology used in gener Indiana, Relator, ating an assessment." Id. (quoting Ind. v. 50, 4.2-3-12(a) (1992
Admin. tit. r. Code & The LAKE SUPERIOR COURT and 1996)). conclude that the legislative We Pete, The Honorable Robert As regulatory scheme required USS to Judge Thereof, Respondents.
set forth in its contentions that local prop erty illegally tax officials had reduced the Indiana, Governor State of et aggregate assessed valuation in the rele (Defendants al., Appellants jurisdiction
vant subject on Form below), the time require limitations and other ments of Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-15-1 and Indiana Administrative Code Title 50 Corporation, al., Miller Citizens et Section 4.2-3-4. Because USS did not do (Plaintiffs below). Appellees so, timely no determination was made that 45S00-0405-OR-204, Nos. illegal
its taxes were a as matter of law 45S00-0405-CV-224. and relief under Indiana Code Section 6-
1.1-15-12 and Indiana Administrative Supreme Indiana. 4.2-3-4, Code Title 50 Sections 12 and 14 Jan. 2005.
on Form 133 was not available.4 The
State Board of Tax proper Commissioners
ly petitions.. dismissed USS's analysis recognize Included in the Tax might conceivably Court's is a 4. We that USS applicability discussion of the of a distinction require- be entitled to relief if it meets the frequently disputing made in cases the avail- hypothetical Taxpayer ments of the "C" in ability appropriate of Form 133-whether 50, Regula- Indiana Administrative Code Title required objective tax officials are to make an However, 4.2-3-12(g)(1)(D). tion USS ad- subjective determination. For the reason regard vances no claim in that in this case. Amoco, we slip op. set forth in BP at n. unnecessary we find apply objec- tive/subjective distinction to resolve this case.
Local Government Finance in No. 45800- 0405-CV-224. Atherton, Soskin,
Thomas Ronald M. Suess, IN, Indianapolis, Attorneys David Appellant Corpora- United States Steel tion. Stroble,
Larry J. Knight, Michael V. IN, Indianapolis, Attorneys for Appellant International Group, Steel Inc. Bennett, IN, Jeffrey Indianapolis, T. At- *4 tormey Appellant for BP Products N. America, Inc. Ham, III, Dlouhy,
Francina A. H. James Ruhl, IN, Christopher A. At- Indianapolis, Inland, tornmneys Appellant Ispat for Inc. Jones, IN, Clyde Gary, Attor- William ney Appellee for Common Council of the City Gary. of Carter, Attorney of Stephen A. General Secrest,
Indiana, Joby Gary Damon Jer- ON PETITION FOR WRIT General,
rells, Indianap- Deputy Attorneys OF AND MANDAMUS
olis, IN, in No. Attorneys for Relator PROHIBITION.
45800-0405-OR-204. Dull, Merrillville, IN, George
John S. BOEHM, Justice. Point, IN,
Patrick, Attorneys Crown for In Assembly passed the General Appellee and The Treasurer Respondent applied only two statutes that County. of Lake provided countywide and for reas- Abrahamson, property purposes sessment of for tax Reed, D. Harold
Kenneth by Department conducted of Local be Reed, Hammond, IN, Gregory P. S.
John by private Finance and con- Government Grimes, IN, Gary,
Reising, Douglas M. plain- the DLGF. The tractors selected Appellee
Attorneys Respondent for and group taxpayers brought are a who tiffs Corporation.
Miller Citizens April Superior an action in 2004 in Lake IN, Berger, Highland, G. Attor- Robert declaratory judgment seeking Court
ney Respondent Appellee for Common The these statutes unconstitutional. City of of the Hammond. Council yet had not bills for taxes due been IN, At-
Joseph Allegretti, Indianapolis, delays mailed due to in the reassessment Com-
torney Respondent Appellee for plaintiffs that the process and asked Chicago. City
mon of the of East Council county in that en- taxing authorities property joined mailing from bills for the Carter, Attorney Stephen A. General taxes due Jerrells,
Indiana, Secrest, Gary Joby Ted Webber, trial court found the statutes
Holaday, Douglas Deputy Attor- IN, of the General, Attorneys separate provisions five
neys Indianapolis, violate Indiana, granted the re- Attor- Indiana Constitution and Appellants Governor of injunction. The At- Indiana, quested preliminary
ney Department General
torney legislation General contended that exclusive rative" validated the acts taken
jurisdiction this case lies in special over under the unconstitutional legisla- Moreover, tion. ground plaintiffs and on that asked this Court until
Court waited prohibition. completed
for a writ of reassessment was in- seek mandarous proceeding pending, that writ junctive
While meantime, relief. other taxpayers government and local appeal preliminary injunction
an units re- ongoing lied on the stayed process
was also initiated. Court This provided by injunction. supply funding statute to preliminary trial court's As a day-to-day govern- essential functions taxing
result the authorities were free to well,
mail the bills for taxes due in 2008. We ment. For that plaintiffs' reason as injunction claim for was barred
then ordered the writ proceeding and the delay in seeking equitable relief.
appeal argued concurrently. to be This
opinion addresses both. Background Factual and Procedural Superior hold that
We brush, In broad the amount jurisdiction
had no to entertain these taxes owed for each individual recognize ordinarily
claims. lack We set allocating the total amount of prop- jurisdiction pre- of the trial court would erty taxes to *5 taxing be raised a district However, deciding any
clude other issues. among all pieces property in proportion presents challenge
this case a to the entire to their assessed valuations. If the total to in process
assessment Indiana's second increases, be raised of course the sum of county.
most For the reasons populous all tax in goes bills the district up by that below,
explained it we think is clear that But, amount. the total amount to be plaintiffs ultimately fail in will their by raised is unaffected a reassessment of enjoin produced effort to the tax bills by property If all assessed valua- valuations. countywide
the 2002 It reassessment. go up tions or down percent- the same
not in anyone's preserve interest false age reassessment, as the result of a even if
hopes by resolving jurisdic- appeal this there is a large change in the dollar short, grounds
tional In alone. there is amount of the assessed valuation on each public
broad in a prompt interest resolu- property, change there is no in the tax case,
tion of parties and the ask us to any burden of property. individual In
address plaintiffs' the merits of the claims terms, simplified if the assessed valuation regard jurisdiction.
without For these every doubles, property it would have
reasons we do so delaying without a final no effect on any the tax bills of of them. resolution of this matter. If, however, go valuations some assessed up others, or down more than always as is We conclude that the statutes providing world, the case in the real some go taxes private
for or the DLGF to assess parties up go down, and some but gains by certain County assets Lake violate one those whose go assessed valuations down provisions of the Indiana Constitu- more than the average are offset losses tion on which plaintiffs rely, but not among those whose assessed in- valuations the other four. Although the 2001 laws crease more than the average. In other IV,
violated Article 22 Section of the words, reassessment is a zero sum game Indiana special legislation Constitution as for all the affected area. providing taxes, for the assessment of
2004 the Assembly passed General a stat- explained below, As in more detail authorizing
ute the assessment County conducted years has for several history had a
pursuant to legislation. the 2001 This "cu- of uneven and generally assessments lower in other creased taxes is to lower the market value than those valuations
assessed properties. of their residential properties of the state for similar because
parts situation, the chal- to this two response purchased most homes are based on the by the were enacted
lenged provisions monthly payments required prin- cash Assembly
2001 session of the General cipal mortgage plus and interest on a tax- law, by their H.B.1902. Both
the same es and insurance. An in taxes increase only popula- in counties with apply
terms potential purchaser means a avail- has less 700,000, 400,000 and
tions between monthly mortgage payments able county meeting County single is the a produces therefore reduced market val- ap- now The two statutes
that criterion. property. ue of the section 6-1.1-4-32 as Indiana Code
pear IV, Article Section of the Indiana (2004), to em- authorized the DLGF which prohibits special Constitution "local or to assess real ploy private firms dealing subject laws" number section County, in Lake and Indiana Code matters, "providing one of which is for the seq., provided for the 6-1.1-8.5-1 et assessment and collection of taxes...." properties itself to assess industrial DLGF IV, provides Article Section 23 that even if as- in Lake with an estimated a law does not address one of the Section in excess of million. sessed value $25 items, general nevertheless must be May property taxes are due Indiana general law "where a law can be made year of each based on as- and November X, applicable." Finally, Article as of March sessed valuations Assembly "provide, directs General year. challenged Both of the preceding law, for a uniform equal rate that formed a provide procedures statutes property assessment and taxation...." *6 process determining the part brought in Plaintiffs this action Lake Su- in Lake assessed valuation Court, perior contending that these two of March 2002. The 2002 County as provi- statutes violate each of these three completed, although la- reassessment was sions, and two others as well. For that usual, firm by private ter than a selected they claim that collection of the reason the Board the In by the State and DLGF. County taxes in Lake must terms, the here that the practical issue is enjoined. responds The that the State proportionally resulted in reassessment jurisdiction trial court lacks over this case. large lower valuations of some assessed contends that the statutes The State also properties in Lake com- industrial constitutional, any and in event the changes the in valua- pared to assessed correct, resulting assessed valuations are nota- properties, tions of some residential point redoing in the assess- so there is no a bly plaintiffs. those owned the As would, agency other that ment some result, the 2008 taxes increased for the time, arrive at the after some extended properties changes whose in as- owners of results, and in the meantime severe- same proportionally higher. sessments were ly day-to-day operation the interfere with properties, these new taxes For some County. in Lake government of local dramatically higher than their histor- were testimony hearing a in which no After if points
ic The out that the levels. State taken, granted pre- trial a was the court accurate, the increase injunction. first asked liminary The State years merely cor- compared prior
taxes Court, Action Original this underpayment
rects an these residential The Rule
properties enjoyed past. 1(A), have a of mandamus writ trial court prohibition, contending of in- that the
plaintiffs counter that the effect jurisdiction plaintiffs' taxpayer wishing
lacked based on the we held that a to contest to exhaust administrative remedies. a tax must
failure first exhaust administrative appeal
The State also initiated an remedies, and that these statutes collec
preliminary injunction pursuant Appel- tively deprive the other trial courts of this 14(A)(5). jurisdiction any prelimi- state of over case that
late Rule Because
nary injunction holding based on a was "principally involves collection of a tax or unconstitutional, a defenses to that statute explained collection." As
appeal directly App. also is to this Court. County Property Tax Assessment 4(A)(1)(b). granted the re-
R.
We
State's
Board
v. BP
Appeals
Corp.,
Amoco
stay
prelimi-
trial court's
quest for
(No.
N.E.2d
be mailed. We then consolidated the ed today, challenge down of the sort
gument proceedings on the two and now plaintiffs bring properly this case is opinion.
address both this presented in the first instance to the Indiana Board of Tax According Review. parties dispute underly- do not ly, judicial exclusively review lies in the juris-
ing relating facts. The issues to the Tax Court. also See State Bd. Tax diction of the trial court and the merits Co., v. Mfg. Comm'rs Mixmill
present only
questions of law.
7OL,
(Ind.1998);
Winski Bros.
I.
the Trial
Jurisdiction
Bayh, 679 N.E.2d
(Ind.Ct.App.
brought
suit contending
Plaintiffs
1997).
decisions,
after these
properties
incorrectly
their
were
assessed
statutes discussed above were amended to
and therefore their soon-to-be mailed tax
substitute the Board of
Review
high.
bills were too
The statute creating
agency
Board as the
entertain
provides
the Tax Court
that court
ing property
appeals
tax
from local taxing
jurisdiction
any
has "exclusive
over
case
authorities,
language
but
conferring
that arises under
tax law
of this state
jurisdiction
exclusive
on the Tax Court
appeal
that is an initial
of a final de-
requiring
exhaustion of administrative
termination" of the Indiana Board of Tax
preserved
remedies was
without change.
(2008).1
§
Review.
Ind.Code
838-3-5-2
*7
198-2001,
98,
§
Pub.L. No.
2001-2 Ind.
provide
Other statutes
in some detail the
12983,
Acts
1407.
perceive
legislative
We
no
procedure
contesting
for
an assessment of
dissatisfaction with the construction of that provision we made explicit in Sproles, and find it controlling here. Indiana Board of Tax Review. According ly, judicial review lies exclusively in the Tax Court. See also State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs v. Mixmill Mfg. Co.,
property. an appeal These include from provision of that explicit we made Board, county determinations and a Sproles, and find it controlling here. provision in Indiana Code section 6-1.1- Plaintiffs Superi- contend that the Lake
15-5(b) of challenges review to assess Court, general jurisdiction, or as a court of
ments the Tax Court "under I.C. 4- jurisdiction has
21.5-5." "over the constitutionality This refers to the Judicial Review
chapter Precisely these statutes." the Indiana Administrative Or the same claim rejected
ders and Act which was advanced and Procedures includes 4(a) requiring Sproles, exhaustion of 672 N.E.2d at ad 1357. That case judicial claim,
ministrative remedies before re involved a in a asserted court of general jurisdiction,
view be initiated. In State v. that a tax could not be 1353,
Sproles, (Ind.1996), 672 N.E.2d 1357 collected because the constitution prevent- repealed
1. P.L. 98-2004 and recodified Title (2004). pears § at Ind.Code 33-26-3-1 1, 2004, July ap- 33. Effective this section subject juris- Sproles The claim in was and both are the exclusive its collection.
ed jeop- diction of the Tax Court the same lan- ban on double
that the constitutional 83-3-5-2(a) collection of the Controlled
ardy prevented guage Indiana Code section (2008), applies that taxpayer language to both Excise Tax where the
Substance (a)(1) posses- convicted of crime listed
had been taxes subsection and to (a)(2). marijuana that was the property taxes in subsection of the same
sion held that such a subject of the tax. We summary, question In whether the tax laws and there- case "arises under" the jurisdiction Tax pure- Court is exclusive is brought
fore must be ly legislative a matter of intent. reme- after exhaustion administrative purpose we that the legis- held the 1986 plain- The sole relief the dies. /d. at 1861. creating lation the Tax Court was to con- injunction against is an tiffs seek here forum, litigation solidate tax in one taxes, and their collection of deprive the courts in various locations the assessed valuations of claim is jurisdiction around the State of to address County property are invalid because Sproles, these issues. at N.E.2d un- was done the assessment Despite his claim that resort to his admin statutes. These constitu- constitutional futile, remedy Sproles istrative was was are asserted as the basis of tional issues required to exhaust administrative reme to the collection of the defense present dies and his constitutional claims did, Sproles as Mr. Plaintiffs taxes. Just to the Tax Court. Id. at 1361. That claim in a court of bring here seek to their Assembly, result is dictated the General jurisdiction enjoin collection of a general govern and the statutes plain same
tax. tiffs' claim here.
The trial court concluded that this case II. The Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims assessments, taxation, not
involves Failure to exhaust administrative As al- Sproles inapplicable. therefore subject ju remedies is a defect in matter noted, governing the statute chal- ready M-Plan, Inc. Compre risdiction. v. Ind. assessments, § 6-1.1-15-5 lenges to I.C. Ass'n, Health Ins. 809 N.E.2d hensive (2004), the exhaus- expressly incorporates (Ind.2004) (citing Lakes Joint Austin challenges to as- requirement tion as to Inc., v. Avon 648 N.E.2d Venture Utils. Assessments, just as other sessments. (Ind.1995)). Accordingly, the trial tax, through are routed challenges to jurisdiction court was without to entertain Review, no dis- Board of Tax and we see claim, prohibition and a writ of chal- purposes tinction for these between a Supe properly requested. State v. Allen assessments, procedural whether lenge to (Ind. Court, rior substantive, any other to con- basis 1998). request us to address the Plaintiffs *8 test a tax. contentions, even if the trial merits of their jurisdiction. agree equally unpersuaded by Plain- court lacked We we
We are fully so. The issues have been suggestion that it makes a difference should do
tiffs' parties by briefed the interve- Sproles in a "listed tax"
that the tax was Revenue, nors, of and a resolution of the merits of
regulated by Department in interest. public these contentions is property than the tax administered
rather of Tax
through the Board Review. Legislation Article Special A. Under jurisdic- statutory language imposes same the Indiana Constitution IV of tax. types tional restrictions on both of Article Both and Section 28 of subject requirement
Both are to the same Section prohibit remedies of the Indiana Constitution
of exhaustion of administrative IV under circum- legislation some
"special" rameters, unique some other charac- contend that the stat-
stances. Plaintiffs teristic. Id. at 692. for DLGF to providing
utes assess indus- private providing
trial and for contractors 1. Local laws property assess- for to assess residential be hired ment and collection taxes of legislation as that special are local or term IV, Article 22 provides Section a list of in agree is used both sections. We subjects special as which "local or laws" "special" purposes these laws are of prohibited. Among these are laws authorizing Article IV. The statutes "providing for the assessment and collec- applied 2002 reassessments their terms argues tion of taxes...." The only population in counties of between apply Section does not to the statutes in 400,000 700,000, County and Lake is here because the Section is writ- question sure, only county. To such be some ten the conjunctive, prohibiting local only applicable spec- statutes to areas with "provide laws that for the assessment and may justifiable populations spe- ified be as collection of taxes." Because there is no legislation, parameters cial because the ra- aspect laws, "collection" to these the State tionally subject relate matter of the contends 22 inapplicable. Section doWe legislation. They may also be viewed as agree. not The constitutional debates "general legislation" subject if the matter make clear that of uniform assess- lack rationally is one that is related to popula- practices ment one principal tion, such as the basic structure of local underlying X, concerns both Article See- So, government. we observed in City of IV, Seq, tion and Article Section 22. Kimsey, South Bend 781 N.E.2d Report the Debates and Proceed- eg., of (Ind.2003), statute, Unigov ings the Convention the Revision applies only to with cities of the counties Indiana, the Constitution the State class, only first and therefore to counties (1850), II at 1290 Douglass Vol. where size, may properly with cities of certain Maguire, delegate a County, from Marion general viewed as a law if it applies even finding "great inequality in the assessment practice only place. By hooking one property," and taxation of called for checks (in defining Unigov characteristic upon county assessors through Board of class) city of the first to the justifying Equalization to all value real (rational characteristic desire for more ex equal an basis. Although "and" is normal pansive and form encompassing metro ly conjunctive, taken as be read as politan government), legislation applicable disjunctive if the context makes clear that only county may one over time become See, legislative is the e.g., intent. State v. however, applicable in others. Here 36, 38, Myers, 146 Ind. 44 N.E. 801-02 apparent limiting reasons for the applica (1896); State, Brook v. tion of in question the statutes are not 1251 (Ind.Ct.App.1983). Rather, population. they
related to plainly We think the history history
derive from proper the troubled
ty makes clear that it taxation discussed was addressed to local be Thus, dealing laws population-
low. the rationale for with either assessment of *9 property taxes,
based statutes or relating organization to the collection of or both. government here,
of local apply do not Section 22 had no counterpart in the 1816 law,
the applicable only County, appeared is Constitution and for the first
"special" legislation whether it describes time the Indiana Constitution as a result name, by population pa- of the 1851 Constitutional It Convention.
1249 Accordingly, agree we legislation. local on dissatisfac- widespread of product the was provisions that these consti- plaintiffs passed of laws with number large the
tion with for the legislation "providing early days special of this tute in the legislature taxes," and subjects. and collection of local assessment purely dealing with
State IV, 22 Article of local therefore violate Section or authorized imposed
Many of these For the reasons roads Indiana Constitution. typically specific projects,
taxes for IV, however, of in Parts III and variety explained addressed Others
or schools. interests, conducted these even the reassessments under local special
other by reason of this are not invalid statutes
granting divorces. flaw the statutes. to value it. property is
To "assess" Dictionary Collegiate
Merriam Webster's IV, laws under Article Sec- Special 2. ed.1993). to (10th a tax is To "assess" 69 tion 23 Thus, syntax, of as a matter it. Id. impose laws also Plaintiffs contend these "providing to laws reference 22's Section IV, 283,which re Article Section violate taxes" of and collection for the assessment law can general be quires that "where only passed with laws deal read to general, all laws shall be applicable, made taxes, of or collection imposition throughout operation and of uniform tax property for of and not the valuation Kimsey, under See held in As we State." Hoovler, However, in State purposes. county is given limited to a tion a law (Ind.1996), addressed we 1229 char are inherent unless "there prohibited a statute prohibited a claim that Section justify locale that of the affected acteristics county option maximum local raising the at Kimsey, N.E.2d legislation." local Tippecanoe to .25% income tax rate county unique reflects If affected applicable rate the 0.7% County from rationally justify the cireumstances permit coun The effect statewide. "ap is not general then a law legislation, an additional 0.55% adopt ty authorities not 23 is elsewhere and Section plicable" a review of tax. After income local Id. violated. 22, this Court of Section roots historical long and tor to the law, points The statute, though a local
held that this in Lake property taxation history of it did tured Section because
did not violate v. State in Matonovich County, described property valuations any new
not "authorize Comm'rs, 705 N.E.2d gathering." tax system changes Bd. Tax Ct.1999) (Ind. an in "an endemic authorization of
Id. at 1233. uniformity of assess problem tax was existing of an in the rate
crease As ex property." within classes of a ments and collection"
not the "assessment county above, parts of a if some Indeed, plained to a specifically referred we
tax. com properties underassess time, significantly "assess noting that
dictionary of the placed the assessed valuations ... pared
ment" includes "valuation elsewhere, effect is properties Hoovier thus similar taxation." Id. purpose from the underas- burdens shift tax dealing with local laws clear that
made Indeed, that was properties. sessed purposes for tax
assessment John, town of St. complaint of the 22. This is by prohibited
were the initial history of Sec County, led to with the consistent in Lake
course "true tax then-prevailing that the holding proce in assessment
tion as variations pro not did system of assessment value" cited rea frequently the most dures were of as- equal method a uniform limits duce for constitutional
sons for the need *10 B. Other Challenges X, Constitutional
sessment in violation of Article Section
1 of the Indiana Constitution. Boehm v. Plaintiffs contend without much ex John, 318,
Town St. planation that these statutes violate Article (Ind.1996). X, 1 of Section the Indiana Constitution. requires That section a "uniform and equal Until the State Tax Board of property rate assessment and taxation."
had the functions of both the Board of Tax have system We held that the property
Review and the DLGF. the State taxation must system be based on a that concluded, public
Board had after hear taxpayer's causes "each property wealth
ings, that widespread underassessment proportion bear its property of the overall County required
various units of Lake or John, tax burden." Town St. a dering countywide reassessment, and N.E.2d at 324. There is no basis to con employed private
had contractor to reas clude that the in question produce statutes County.
sess all in Lake Though a disproportionate assessment. Different
noting finding Board's procedures State that to accomplish there a reassessment
was "a widespread recognition that an based on the as same substantive rules of valuation problem
sessment exists in do not violate that County," provision. In- deed, this
the Tax Court has held that goal concluded that the Board uniformity statewide authority proportionality
had no employ private to firm trumps a local government's authority perform the reassessment. Matono value
vich,
property. Zoercher v. Agler, 202
promptly granted the Board authority equal rate" of assessment-is required,
the Tax lacking by Court found enacting but requirement there is no of uniform
the statutes challenge Plaintiffs in this procedures to arrive at that rate. To the
case. We thus have administrative find power of local authorities to contrary, ings, judicial findings, legislative ac implement tax purely laws is statutory in tion pointing all unique to a cireumstance nature. The only constitutional constraint created uneven practices assessment X, under Article Section 1 upon parts And,
various County. of Lake itself, provide which must a uniform point out, Plaintiffs a few huge industrial equal assessment, rate of may but complexes in County sig constitute provide procedures whatever are appropri- nificant percentages of all taxable ate consistent with the provisions other districts, taxing some a situation not the Constitution. in any faced other county, and requiring great care in valuing such a dominant as For the same reason that these unique set of kind and character for which IV, statutes do not violate Article ready
there is no comparable. market to 283,they I, also do not violate Article See
that for residential housing. We are di tion requires legislative
rected to no comparable set of cireum- reasonably classifications be related in in any county
stances other producing such herent characteristics that define the class.
widespread tax inequities and unusual is Plaintiffs do not elaborate on these claims
sues of valuation. These conditions readi and we left to surmise what the classi
ly justify legislation local to deal with a fication Taking be. the complaint at problem of a seale value, and com face appears class to be Lake
plexity not found elsewhere in the state. taxpayers compared to those in all
1251 The by locally elected officials. above, sessment given explained As counties. other recorder, court, auditor, the cireuit underassess- clerk of systematic history of long
the coroner, sheriff, surveyor County, treasurer, there is of parts
ment VI, reassess- for 2 to be provide by to Article Section required reason are
abundant county by means in that no "elected, county." There is property
ment of in each other coun- Indeed, applied those from
different as to assessors. requirement such satisfy the first thus The statutes
ties. history in the of this state points at some I, of Article requirements of the
prong by local assessors disparities created the of treatment separate The
Section cre- pressures election to local responding to its "reasonably related" County is equalization a statewide for ated demand v. Collins characteristics." "distinguishing resulting unfairness. to eliminate board (Ind.1994). 72, 80
Day, Walsh, History The E. Centennial Justin Assembly 1816- Indiana General not argument, an advance Plaintiffs also of (1987). 1978, 102-04 constitutional any specific
clearly tied that of which is substance
provision, claim that these statutes Plaintiffs' ad- recognize would
local assessors I, against "tak of violate Article lowering valuations that effect
verse is compensation without ing" have on some of would properties
industrial that taxa compound- is -It established This frivolous. is well properties.
residential meaning that this
ed, by "taking" the fact within the say, tion is not a plaintiffs by dif- two Frem performed Hutchins v. Town provision. this for (1924); contractors private 74, 83, agencies, ont, 142 N.E.
ferent 194 Ind. in- State, and DLGF properties
residential Jackson Bd. Comm'rs of a constitu- They claim property. (1897); dustrial 5A 476, 492, 46 N.E. Ind. officials locally elected to have right
tional Constitutional Encyclopedia, Law Ind. There are sev- the assessments.
perform (1984). properties The § at 427 Law First, this claim. wrong with things
eral owners, and in the hands remain authori-
valuations, made local whether by the reassess unaffected their use is others, 1 of a as of March are ties or ment. caused Any in valuations year. shift given a number advance Finally, Plaintiffs is a matter in the future by tax bills the wisdom questioning arguments Second, argu- future reassessments. is no constitutional but raise legislation, that these a claim down to ment boils local claim that they example, For sue. treat- preferential right have a plaintiffs opportunity given the should be authorities laws. That is tax under the ment They also the assessments. perform by other rejected the contention precisely awareness taxpayer the lack question of St. including the residents taxpayers, based of reassessment the effect John, disadvantaged selective felt who mortgaged homes are many fact of Lake parts underassessments receive agents, escrow mortgagees, violated their disparities
and claimed those no present claims notices. These the tax equal taxation. uniform and
rights must policy arguments legal issue. substantive showing that
Without Assembly, not this the General directed to by the reassessments reached results claims, such as other assump- Plaintiffs'
incorrect, indulge not Court. we will tax the homestead unconstitutionality of at a would arrive local officials
tion that to the trial credit, presented not were nothing Finally, there result.
different appeal.. available on are not court and an as- guarantees
in the Constitution
III. The 2004 Law as Curative Accordingly, even if section 35 is read to © Legislation exclude County, Lake that exclusion would fall, purpose for the of preserving the stat- A general readily law could have been ute. in 2001 that
crafted would have accom- provides Section 35 DLGF order a
plished Assembly what the General at- county State-conducted reassessment for a
tempted to do. As explained Part II. if it determines that the local
A.2, officials are County long Lake has a and troubled complete unable to the reassessment
history property, of assessment of includ- October or likely to complete
ing findings of early the State Board as as in an "inaccurate manner." systematic
1998 that underassessment re- The DLGF is authorized to contract with
quired countywide reassessment. A private parties perform the reassess- applicable
statute to all permit- counties ment. Nothing precludes the DLGF from
ting the use of private contracted asses- performing part of the reassessment it- permitting
sors or perform DLGF to self and contracting for others. The
that function where such a finding is made DLGF was thus authorized the 2004 general subject
would be a law not legislation to do substantially the same challenge special
Article IV legislation. as things that were in fact
In passed. 2004 such a law was done under color of section 82. We are (2004), Indiana Code section 6-1.1-4-85 unwilling fortify armory of those applies by its a county terms to "other who attack the law as famous for ability its county subject than a to section 32 [I.C. to elevate form over substance. We see no § At 6-1.1-4-32]." the time this law was basis to trigger disruption that would passed, the intent of this ex- presumably generated by be invalidation of the entire ception County, was to exclude Lake: county's property tax base where there is which, II, explained in Part is the only no showing any identifiable county that population meets the parame- has been incorrectly Indeed, assessed. ters of "section 82." Because section 32 plaintiffs what preservation seek is court IV, 22, however,
violates Article no system of a of taxation that was held inval- county "subject is to section 82" and see- years id six ago in State Board tion applies by its terms to Lake Coun- John, Commissioners v. Town St. ty ninety-one and all other counties. (Ind.1998). N.E.2d 1034 Moreover, 835(v) section specifically. pro- provision
vides that "the of this section are The 2004 law acts as curative by authorizing 1-1-1-8(b) provided §
severable as in .C. taken legislation actions general severability [the statute]." Pursu- to an unconstitutional statute. 35(v), "A curative act is a
ant to Section passed any statute to cure we are to sever portions
invalid of section If section prior law, 35 defects in or to legal validate inapplicable
were County, instruments, would proceedings, public acts of
constitute special legislation for the same private administrative authorities. the absence of such an act the statute
reasons IV, section 32 runs afoul of Article
Section 22 of the Indiana Constitution. would be void for want of conformity with
Based on the effort in accomplish 2001 to "existing legal requirements.... cura [A]
essentially the same thing for Lake may Coun- tive act any past validate action which
ty, we think it clear that the General As- legislature might have authorized be
sembly prefer would application statewide forehand." 2 Singer, Norman J. Statutes
of section 35 to its statewide invalidity. Construction, Statutory 41.11, § at legis here is that point The relevant ed.2001). (6th has This Court
466-67 legislation curative pass curative lature test for Cooley's Judge
adopted performed pursuant acts official validates
acts: later determines is to an act which a court failed to or which thing wanting
If the long as the curative so unconstitutional the de- done, which constitutes any from does not suffer statute something proceedings, in the
fect *13 Thus, in original the law. might same defects as legislature which the
necessity for statute, Martin, an act passed prior legislature the 1947 with dispensed
have authority of the to es beyond power the trial courts the gave not that
then it is byit subse- dispense conservancy appoint districts and to
legislature tablish irregularity if the appraisers. And Subse
quent statute. directors and their act, the or in doing in some that the 1947 law
consists the held quently, Court act, doing of some manner
mode or since removed requirement, violated the made might have legislature the IV,
which Indiana 19 of the from Article law, equally it is by prior
immaterial act Constitution, subject every of that the immaterial the same to make
competent in title." State ex expressed the "shall be subsequent law.
by a Conservancy Iroquois R.R. v. rel. Pa. Co. Court, 353, 359, N.E.2d 235 Ind. 133 Mutschler, Dist. 232 v. rel. Harris State ex
See 206, (1956). legisla- 210 590-91, 848, response, N.E.2d 580, 115 851
Ind. Conservancy Act of 1957 passed ture
(1953) Cooley, Consti 2 Thomas M. (citing (7th ed.)). conser- authorized the its terms at 775-76 Limitations
tutional liberally con act should to the
A curative vanceydistricts established 591, Mutschler, 115 Ind. at 232 acts of the legalized prior
strued. 1947 act and validating or 210. A curative
N.E.2d at This those districts. of directors for board legisla retrospective species a
statute is within the that because was Court held a cura
tion, not make such that does to establish "but prerogative legislature's violating unless
tive act unconstitutional 1947, in it was also conservancy districts im provision such constitutional
some Assembly of the General power within the or the of a contract obligation pairing by pass- defects any constitutional to cure process." due without taking constitu- that meets legislation curative ing Dist., Conservancy Davis v. Ben
Martin Martin, at 238 Ind. requirements. tional 125, 502, 512, 130 153 N.E.2d Ind. 238 Similarly, this 512, at 130. 153 N.E.2d Miller, Bank v. (1958); Nat'l See Muncie 591, Mutschler, 115 Ind. at 232 Court (1883). Therefore, 441, when 446 Ind. 210, law that general a upheld at N.E.2d legislation legislature curative passing that school districts consolidated legalized facto con and validate a de may recognize improper to defectively formed due were to limitations There are or status. dition It was within elections. or invalid notice legislature example the For this doctrine. dispense with legislature's discretion act, an unconstitutional cannot authorize consolidation, so it requirements those 130, 513, at Martin, Ind. at validate consolidations permissible in a court defect jurisdictional or cure them, al without place taken that had Mosier, 192 Ind. Seitz proceeding, time the required at the were though they (1922). But 421-22, 136 N.E. Id. place. took originally consolidation legislature here. applicable are none Commissioners In Fahlor v. Board authorized statewide could have
plainly (1885), 167, 171-72 Ind. County, 101 Wells procedures under reassessments proceedings declared this Court
section County
and orders of the Wells board ments itself in counties where de- DLGF
were void because the board was not termines local officials unable to complete
regular special when it the reassessment approved session October likely 2003 or are to complete a road. reassess- year, construction of The next ment in an
however, "inaccurate manner." The in Johnson v. Board Commis DLGF did find widespread unequal assess- County, 107 sioners Wells Ind. 26 8 practices ment County, pursu- (1886), upheld N.E. legisla ant to section county's property 32 the passed
tion one month after the decision values were legislature reassessed. The
Fahnlor, legalize proceedings power had the to authorize the DLGF
county gravel board as to the road. The order the reassessment of values legislation
Court held that in curative at the passed time it see-
valid if it "materially interferes with or tion 32. It therefore also *14 power had the to rights, overthrows im vested creates and cure the constitutional by defect of the act burdens, poses infringes new or upon the enacting section 35. Accordingly, the 2002
judicial department government." of the subject is valid any indi- Johnson, 19, 5-6; 107 Ind. at N.E. at see vidual errors in assessment that are deter- also 5A Ind. Law Encyclopedia, Constitu mined the normal process. review (1984). § tional Law at 188 But in The doctrine of these, legislation per-
the curative any absence of of a curative law legislature mits the ratify effect to
salvages actions taken under defective previously unauthorized reassessment. in disregard procedural
statutes or re- produces injustice. This no There un- are
quirements that are not required by due constitutional statutes and unconstitutional
process. reasoning This has specifi- been statutes. The constitutional flaw claimed
cally followed the United States Su- here is not that plaintiffs' the property is
preme Court in sustaining curative laws valued, incorrectly or that the assessments
authorizing assessments for tax purposes.
violated the
requirement
substantive
In
Supervisors Albany,
Williams v.
they
Article X that
be "uniform and
154, 164,
U.S.
7 S.Ct.
Sch. Dist. S.T. 185 Tex. law permits an appeal of a property own (1940). S.W.2d er's if assessments even the basis of that sum, in 2004 the Legislature appeal is an incorrect assessment of other
authorized the DLGF to contract pri with properties. The law thus affords a reme parties
vate perform property dy value any inequity. But that remedy is not upsetting the entire fiscal structure of
reassessments to conduct reassess- to the local improper motives imputing if the result county, would
the out, points the authorities. As basis on the are assessed taxpayers
some the values to be governing provisions those who values pre-reassessment applicable state- are placed get its the reassessment pleased
are only effect of the statutes wide. The
benefits. agency change plaintiffs attack is Relief Appropriate IV. assessment, not sub- performs by the trial granted injunctive relief In- is to do. of what assessor stance apart for reasons inappropriate court is deed, conclude that the have no basis to we Both the balance jurisdiction. lack of from by the produced valuations assessed the doctrine of and burdens of benefits any differ- firm are private or the DLGF award- injunctive relief preclude laches produced have been from what would ent different These are trial court. ed if the local authori- by timely assessment point that this making legal
ways of one, or produce able to ties had been in- judgment and declaratory lawsuit by a reassessment produced would be process in the far too late junction comes the future. seek. plaintiffs the result to obtain until the eve cannot wait
Plaintiffs equity As a matter basic tax bills already overdue
date on which injunctions, law, preliminary and the law *15 a an attack on to launch out
to be sent the relative benefits courts must consider underway for over been relief, that has
process injunctive granting and burdens of operation to the is critical years and
three Ind. are correct. See plaintiffs if the even government. Walgreen
of Admin. v. Family & Soc. Servs. (Ind.2002). 158, A Co., 161 769 N.E.2d Improper is Injunctive
A. Relief pre court, application an considering the tradi injunction "will consider liminary authoriz- statutes
Although we find the convenience; is to to violate Section of
ing these assessments tional balance greater whether consider say, that will to conclude
22, no basis given we are the in by granting injury be done by a would produced would be
a different result a refusal result from junction than would tri- The by local authorities.
reassessment found, correctly, that Balancing Equities, 48A C.J.S. presumably
al court to do so." Inconvenience, Injury-Tem Hardship, or to in- is of the reassessment
the effect or Re Preliminary Injunction porary or compared properties
crease taxes on some (2004). 82, Equity § 102 straining Order prior the same
to taxes on eq to balance traditionally free courts finding that But there is no
years. determining wheth hardships and stat- uities to these done
reassessment remedy. equitable grant to an or not from the er result a different produced
utes Remedies, 4(1), § 2. Dobbs, Law Dan D. if ultimately prevail that will
assessments of Indeed, ed.1998). (2d Moreover, injunctive if the enjoined. tax bills are at 91 nature, will and courts equitable is relief jobs properly, do their
local authorities use authority produce to that not exercise properly, was done the reassessment Sani rel Board State ex less results. they would to conclude is no basis
there Haute v. Su Terre tary Commissioners any specific result for
reach a different 617, 220 247 Ind. Vigo Cty., course, perior can one Of property. piece differences, N.E.2d 336 (Ind.1966). Given might there be
conjecture that 30, June law, effective which became new to conclude what no basis there is
but DLGF to redo 2004, permit be, would at least without would differences
those
entire reassessment and arrive at the 1996). same 1996, early As the need for
place, injunctive relief must be denied on reassessment was obvious as a result of jurisdiction ground alone. "The of a this Court's decision in Boehm v. Town of John,
court
no
equity
(Ind.1996).
extends
farther than is St.
necessary equitable thing; do some it basic fact of the legislature's provision for jurisdiction useless, unjust, County by private
has no to do inequitable things." In re Hawkins contractors and the pub- DLGF was in the Co., (7th
Mortgage 45 F.2d Cir. lic record widely publicized since 2001.
1931). "It an age old axiom that equity The county's taxing authorities are now
will not thing." do useless Townsend dependent on the process results of that forward,
Quern, (N.D.Ill.1979). if belatedly, F.Supp. move proceed injunction
An is to be denied if public ordinary process funding govern-
interest would substantially adversely ment. Under these circumstances laches
affected, even if the plaintiff has a claim. granting injunction bars of an based
Fumo v. Medical Group City, Mich. facts and theories plaintiffs available to the
Inc., years three earlier. (Ind.Ct.App.
1992).
Conclusion B. Laches preliminary injunction entered
Finally, just any as in other case the trial court is vacated. This case is relief,
seeking equitable delay undue in remanded with instructions to dismiss the
seeking the relief bar relief. complaint Here jurisdiction. for lack of plaintiffs brought April this suit on DICKSON, J. concurs.
2004, seeking enjoin the Lake
Treasurer sending from out tax bills that SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN J.
should have been in March 2008. But due concur in Part I separate with opinion by due delays reassessment, to tax the bills SULLIVAN, J. already year
were over a late. The claim RUCKER, I, II, J. concurs in Parts and statutes, is that these on the books two IV, and dissents as to Part III sepa- since were unconstitutional. Rather opinion. rate than seeking enjoin to the implementation of these reassessment procedures, the SULLIVAN, Justice, concurring in Part plaintiffs they waited until completed, were I. no other reassessment having been con I concur with the Court's earlier deci- ducted, and then sought enjoin to the col sion to vacate the trial injunction court's
lection of already 2008 taxes year over one entered this permit case and delayed. This is a classic invoking base County property tax authorities to mail equitable doctrine of laches. property tax bills based on the new assess-
Laches equitable is an doctrine. ments that challenged in this case. I limitations,
Unlike statutes of it does not also concur in part I of opinion. the Court's
principally turn on Rather, time alone. if More specifically, agree I that Legisla- party,
a with knowledge of the relevant deprived ture has Indiana trial courts of
facts, permits passing of time to work jurisdiction to review the claims advanced change
a cireumstances other taxpayers in this case. Sproles party, laches bar the claim. v. case is clear unequivocal precedent on Shafer
Lambie, 231 (Ind.Ct.App. point. this protects trial state's hundreds of courts time, I with the agree the same
At all taxpayers interests of both and of has whose taxpayers that Fur- rely government services. appeal their us who assessed can incorrectly
been thermore, utilizing orderly system an chan administrative through
assessments al- Court review Dept Local Gov't administrative. nels. This Court Ind., legislative branches Co. lows the executive Edison
Fin. v. Commonwealth controversies, 49S10-0307-TA-293, of tax compromises N.E.2d to effect No. rather than have the answers dictated (Ind. 13, 2005), clear makes Jan.
1226-27 (a of) variety if even courts. remedy is available
that taxpayer's contends the taxpayer a
reason I that tax- part It is because believe prop- high is that other is too assessment legislative payers and the executive and county is assessed township in the erty should have maximum freedom branches (The of Local contrary Department to law. compromise of this tax controver- to effect fil- clear in its Finance made Government wrong that I think the Court is reach sy prepared that was ings in this case the various constitutional the merits of 5,000 Lake of over the assessments review century More than a claims advanced. taxpayers before County residential ago, this Court said: brought in this case injunction trial court's pass upon will not constitu- Courts Br. Reply halt. to a See proceedings and decide statute question, tional 4.) at Relator-Appellants invalid, upon a decision that unless unwieldy if appears that it recognize
I necessary to the de- very point becomes they taxpayers who believe
not unfair the cause. This court has termination of assessed-particularly, wrongly
have been questions of this held repeatedly they case, they believe where unless such character will not be decided to an uncon-
have been assessed absolutely necessary to a dis- decision through sev- go statute-must
stitutional
on merits.
of the cause
its
position
before
layers of administrative review
eral
1, 4, N.E.
Darlington, 153 Ind.
Tax Court.
appeal
to the
being allowed
accord,
(1899);
Elk Grove
Unified
un-
claims of
trial courts review
Indiana
-
Newdow,
-,
-,
Dist. v.
U.S.
Sch.
time; why, the
constitutionality all the
(2004)
2301, 2308,
viewed 466, 288, 341, 56 S.Ct. Authority, 297 U.S. is, course, that the (1986) J., (Brandeis, concur
The short answer
Legislature has Motor ring)); Spector 101, 105, 65 S.Ct. 323 U.S. McLaughlin, deter-
laws, Legislature up it is ("If (1944) of Indiana trial one jurisdiction 152, there is
mine
courts. See adjudica process in the of constitutional Legis- er explain why
But sound reasons tion, pass not to ought Pro- we procedure. this
lature established ... unless constitutionality questions frequent yet taxes over taxes are
tests unavoidable."); Owens safety and such provide public adjudication is
are needed to Cobb, 754 Corp. v. Corning Fiberglass system A that chan- public services.
other (Ind.2001); Indiana orderly sys- N.E.2d through an protests
nels tax ex Liquor Co. Wine & re- Wholesale administrative and Court
tem of Comm'n, 695 in stoppages risking abrupt
view without Indiana Alcoholic Bev. rel. (Ind.1998); any one of the Nat'l by order of Citizens
tax collections N.E.2d Foster,
Bank v. 1241 den unanticipated. were not In a 1996
(Ind.1996). study by commissioned the then State (now Board of Tax Commissioners the De- points Because a decision on the dis- partment of Finance, Local Government cussed in II through Parts "DLGF"), predicted researchers unnecessary IV are to the determination of adoption of a market value methodology case, I express opinion no respect for the assessment of real property, pro-
thereto. vided no other in changes the tax code adopted, were would result in an average
SHEPARD, C.J., concurs. statewide increase of in 89% tax obli- RUCKER, Justice, concurring part in gations for residential property owners. 3 dissenting part. Appellants' App. at 10. That estimate was
I respectfully dissent from part III of adjusted later to reflect an estimated 338% majority opinion. In all tax respects payment other increase statewide. Notably,
I concur. Id. observed, the researchers "Lake and Crawford Counties stand out as The 2002 reassessment of real property having the highest shifts, residential tax County in Lake has resulted in a dramatic 73.7%, 91.7% and respectively." Id. at increase the property tax obligations for 187. The reason for the estimated 91.7% County most Lake general homeowners in tax shift in County was apparently and the homeowners to this litigation in in part due to the business and residential particular. In one instance a homeowner's "multipliers" used the formula for deter- tax bill 208%, increased an astounding mining market value assessments. Both another instance an even more multipliers higher were in Lake County astounding 559%.2 The tax increase has any than in county other in the State of had a devastating impact on ability Indiana. respect With to the accuracy of many homeowners to meet their monthly these multipliers, the researchers conclud- mortgage payment obligations. For oth ed: ers, it may mean losing their homes alto If anything, the business multiplier used gether. This turn of events is not neces in the baseline scenario overstates the sarily the result of entities other than the actual multiplier business in Lake Coun- elected conducting Assessors property tax ty. Replacing multipliers used Rather, reassessments. it is the result of our analysis with the multipliers [relied a shift in the tax burden to local home upon by experts' the State assessment] owners from what has been referred to as would reduce the homeowner shift in (United Big "The Four" States Steel Cor 76.4%, from 91.7% to
poration; Ispat Inland, Inc.; International which still would be highest shift Inc.; Steel Group, and BP Productions of among Indiana counties. America, Inc.).
North Id. at 187-88. *18 sure,
To be the 2002 reassessment The record before us is silent regarding resulting
the shift in property the tax bur- whether and to what extent the DLGF example,
2. For property the taxes of home- obligation owner E.R.'s tax increased from owners D.E. and N.E. $2000 increased from $9267.90; $2706 to the taxes of homeowners $9000; to obligation homeowner M.F.'s tax $4600; K.S. and D.S. $1800 increased from to $5000; $2400 increased from to homeowner and the taxes of homeowners S.W. and A.H. obligation M.G.'s tax $1050 increased from to $15,089. $2700 increased from to R. at 55- $4320; homeowner obligation B.H.'s tax in- $11,460.08; $3756.48 creased from to home-
1259 potent the most majority forecloses study the its results of the account into took enti- to homeowners available argument as it be observations the researchers' relief, namely: to administrative tling them scheme assessment property craft
gan to are un- property statutes measures the assessment accurately because
that more record constitutional, the collected important, the taxes Equally
wealth. or methodolo formulae as a matter illegal the are not reveal the statutes
does to the value to assess DLGF by the
gy used law. "Big the holdings of property the real the reassess that do know We
Four.3 Legislation A. Curative among some in tax shifts resulted
ments certainly First, although Legislature the far excess County homeowners legisla- curative authority to enact the has We by the researchers. predicted those in the text of the tion, nothing there is provided Four" were "Big the know also intend- Legislature the suggest to statute for the assessment rules "special By function. that 35 to serve ed section facilities...." industrial taxation ap- that section declaring specifically fact that The § 6-1.1-8.5-13. Indiana Code county than a county "other plied industrial were fashioned rules special is County]" it subject [Lake to section any indi lack of the coupled with facilities excep- as an intended section 35 was clear study to its own relied on the DLGF cation any not a "cure" section 32 tion to sys assessment the new develop infirmity. constitutional perceived not view because my significant tem is thus Second, but "DLGF was properties, say that the values the assessed
only are do properties by legislation at which the 2004 tax rates authorized the
also in Lake by things who conducts
assessed, affected the same substantially rules the the what under and under fact done County that were
the assessments 82," simply is Op. are assessed. at of section
properties color of the stat- language the supported not observa- foregoing the made Having spe- in 2002 as it existed ute. Section majori- with the
tions, agree I nonetheless asses- cifically dictated an available is not injunctive relief ty that have or appraise property, "may not sors I so And do instance. remedy in this duty of only appraised...." majori- the reasons upon largely based provide [the was "to assessors the local However, majority has ty explains. ... contractor DLGE"s] [the DLGF] legisla- curative
declared, on the basis of requested information support and any is valid
tion, "the 2002 reassessment By Id. or the contractor." [DLGF] errors in individual subject any there legislation contrast, the 2004 under in the nor- that are determined assessment local placed prohibition no absolute is (empha- Op. at process."
mal review conducting reassessments. from assessors added). majority's only Not is
sis a state "may order Rather, DLGF applica- not analysis legislation"
"curative if it county" in the conducted case, by using also in this but ble necessary. a reassessment determines assessments, to validate
vehicle Board of See State of value." estimate same accepted methods three
3. There Commissioners, Property As- property: 2002 Real value of real to determine (2002), at available at 3 Manual ap- comparison sessment sales approach, cost *19 gov/dlgf/reassessment/ap- http://www.in. approach. "All three the income proach, and add- (emphasis proved_manuals/index.html pro- properly approaches, when of these cessed, ed). the approximately produce should 6-1.1-4-35(e). then, §
1.C. Even provided request Petition to a correction of errors
the local assessors act before the DLGF for one or more of following the reasons: reassessment,
orders a state conducted (1) the description The of the real property
local may assessors "enter into a contract inwas error. professional appraising with a firm to con- (2) The assessment against the § duct a reassessment...." L.C. 6-1.1-4- wrong person. 35(i). And that contract "is as valid as if it (3) Taxes on the property same were [DLGF]); had been entered into the (1) charged more than one time in [{] shall be treated as the contract of the year. the same essence, In newly [DLGEF]." Id. the enact- (4) There was a mathematical error statute, supposedly ed which applies state- computing the or penalties taxes on
wide, essentially gives local assessors an the taxes. "opt-out" provision. Nothing resembling (5) There was an error carrying de- such a provision exists the Lake Coun- linquent (1) taxes forward from one Thus,
ty-only statute. while it is true the tax duplicate to another. may DLGF order a statewide reassess- (6) taxes, law, aas matter of were
ment under section it does not have illegal.
carte authority blanche to conduct
reassessment itself or to (7) hire contractors There was a mathematical error in purpose. Rather,
for that unlike section computing an assessment. 32, under section 35 local Assessors still (8) Through an error of omission any
play significant role in the assessment of state or county officer taxpayer property. local given was not credit for an exemp- tion or permitted deduction by law. Finally, perhaps importantly, most 6-1.1-15-12(g). § .C.
section certainly not has "cured" the
constitutionally though Even injunction § defective IL.C. not 6-1.1-8.5- be an seq. statute, remedy, et available This the fact has under- remains
gone no imposed substantial revision taxes since its this en- case are
actment, provides based on "special rules" for unconstitutional
assessment of statutes. "An "Big Four." And unconstitutional act is not law; it
assessments confers rights; conducted under no it imposes this statute no duties;
apparently have
it
greatest
protection;
been the
affords no
contrib-
it creates
as though it had never been passed." State v. Steinwedel,
utor to significant office; tax increases is, no in legal contemplation, as inoperative inoperative County. though
homeowners A it had never DLGF been passed."
ordered Steinwedel, State v. reassessment of today 208 Ind. (19832).
could not 180 N.E. include this Lake County-only Consequently,
provision. sum, doctrine of curative the property taxes assessed
legislation these § saves neither I.C. unconstitutional illegal 6-1.1-4-82 statutes are §
nor I.C. "as a 6-1.1-8.5-1 et matter of seq. § law." See I.C. 6-1.1-15-
12(a)(6). It is on ground homeowners here should be entitled to B. Available Remedies relief. And the relief should entail pay- §
Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-1 seq. et sets ment of property taxes due owing
forth procedures appeal review and based the preexisting assessments with
of property tax Among assessments. oth- appropriate refunds for all or a portion of things,
er a taxpayer may file a Form 183 tax already installments paid under the *20 majority Part III of the fully dissent from § 6-1.1-26- IL.C. See
2002 assessments. I concur. respects In all other opinion.
1(4)(B). nothing there In the meantime ordering DLGF from prohibit provi- under
conducted § enact- 6-1.1-4-35 of Indiana Code
sions in 2004.
ed homeowners majority suggests the au under an available
have remedy Fin. Department Local Gov't
thority of
WALLACE,
Ray, petitioner,
Donald
Ind., 820
Edison Co.
v. Commonwealth
(No.
49S10
ever, that Commonwealth appears to me No. 84S00-0412-SD-502. conjunction must be read
Edison of Indiana. Supreme Court Bd. Tax Assessment County Prop. Corp., BP Amoco
Appeals v. 13, 2005. Jan. 49S10-0309-TA-00400) (Ind. (No. Amoco, 2005). BP I read And as
Jan. already taxpayer has
only if at least one challeng petition a Form 130
timely filed generating methodology used
ing the assessments, 2002 Lake review the administrative
only through if that the is a determination
process there relief, only then is entitled
taxpayer case may the homeowners
then filing Form relief be afforded
possibly at 1236- Id. at 820 N.E.2d petitions. sum, majority's as I understand in this case although the taxes
position, as- under unconstitutional
were assessed statutes, has no that fact alone
sessment Rather, in order to consequence.
practical relief, must advance an homeowners
obtain un- the statutes' independent of
argument I endorse this
constitutionality. cannot these home- comfort to
view. It is small to declare one for the Court
owners consti- challenged statutes that the
breath legislation, a special
tute unconstitutional agree, I with which
proposition equiva- functional declare the
next breath I Accordingly, respect- of "so what."
lent