Mirko Blesich v. Lake County Assessor , 2015 Ind. Tax LEXIS 82 ( 2015 )

PETITIONER APPEARING PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
MIRKO BLESICH GREGORY F. ZOELLER
St. John, IN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
ANDREW T. GREIN
JESSICA R. GASTINEAU
DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
Indianapolis, IN
______________________________________________________________________
IN THE
INDIANA TAX COURT
______________________________________________________________________
Dec 30 2015, 9:23 am
MIRKO BLESICH, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Cause No. 49T10-1410-TA-00064
)
LAKE COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION
OF THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW
FOR PUBLICATION
December 30, 2015
FISHER, Senior Judge
Mirko Blesich challenges the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax
Review that valued his real property at $300,000 for the 2007 through 2010 tax years.
Upon review, the Court affirms the Indiana Board’s final determination.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Blesich owns a single-family dwelling located in St. John, Indiana. During the
years at issue, the Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA)
assigned Blesich’s property the following assessed values: $320,000 for 2007, $320,000
for 2008, $300,900 for 2009, and $320,000 for 2010. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 4, 12, 21,
28.) Believing these values to be too high, Blesich filed four appeals with the Indiana
Board on May 31, 2010.
The Indiana Board conducted a consolidated hearing on the appeals on June 9,
2014. During the hearing, the Indiana Board’s administrative law judge determined that
because the PTABOA’s 2007 assessment represented an increase of more than 5% from
the previous year’s final assessed value of $300,000, the Lake County Assessor bore the
burden of proving under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 that the assessment was correct.
(See Cert. Admin. R. at 92-93.) The administrative law judge also indicated that the party
who would bear the burden of proof in each of the remaining years at issue would be
contingent upon the party who prevailed on the preceding year’s assessment challenge;
as a result, she recommended that each party make its best case for each year. (See
Cert. Admin. R. at 92-93.)
To that end, both the Assessor and Blesich presented evidence in support of their
positions. Specifically, the Assessor presented data relating to four properties that sold
in Blesich’s neighborhood in 2006. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 82-86, 99-100.) The Assessor
claimed that given the average sales price per square foot for these four properties,
Blesich’s 2007 assessment should be reduced to $311,000.1 (See Cert. Admin. R. at 82,
99-100.) Blesich, on the other hand, presented an appraisal report that valued his
property at $275,000 as of March 9, 2012. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 60-77, 123.) Blesich
also presented evidence to show the sales prices per square foot of three properties on
1
The Assessor provided no evidence or argument with respect to the assessed values for the
other years at issue. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 114, 117-18, 126-27.)
2
his street, which he argued were more comparable to his property than the properties that
were offered by the Assessor. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 59, 78, 103-04.) Blesich
maintained that this evidence demonstrated that his property should have been assessed
at $270,000 for 2007, $248,500 for 2008, $257,000 for 2009, and $260,000 for 2010.
(See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 2, 10, 19, 26, 107.)
On September 4, 2014, the Indiana Board issued a final determination in the
matter. In that final determination, the Indiana Board held that while the Assessor bore
the burden of proving that the assessed values were correct for all four of the years at
issue, she failed to satisfy that burden because she failed to demonstrate how the
properties in her sales data were comparable to Blesich’s property. (See Cert. Admin. R.
at 47-50 ¶¶ 16, 17(c), 18(a)-(d).) The Indiana Board then explained that while Blesich
had an opportunity under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 to present evidence to show what
the proper assessments should have been, his evidentiary presentation suffered from the
same infirmity as the Assessor’s: in presenting his sales data, he too failed to
demonstrate how the properties were comparable to his. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 47-49
¶¶ 15, 17(f).) Moreover, the Indiana Board explained that Blesich’s appraisal carried no
weight because it was dated March 9, 2012, which was too far removed from any of the
valuation dates at issue. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 49 ¶ 17(g).) Accordingly, the Indiana
Board ordered Blesich’s 2007 through 2010 assessments to revert to the property’s 2006
assessed value of $300,000. (Cert. Admin. R. at 47 ¶ 15, 50 ¶ 19 (both referring to IND.
CODE § 6-1.1-15-17.2(b) (2014) (explaining that when neither party’s evidence proves
what the correct assessment should be, the assessed value reverts to the previous year’s
final assessed value)).)
3
On October 8, 2014, Blesich initiated this original tax appeal. The Court heard oral
argument on September 16, 2015. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination bears the
burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Osolo Twp. Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane
Assocs., 789 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003). The Court will reverse an Indiana
Board final determination if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;
in excess of or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance
of the procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence. See
IND. CODE § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (2015).
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Blesich argues that the Indiana Board erred when it determined that
his evidence did not support his claim that the assessed value of his property was less
than $300,000.2 (Pet’r Br. Real Estate Tax Appeal (“Pet’r Br.”) at 2-3; Oral Arg. Tr. at 7-
8.) The Court disagrees.
Blesich’s Sales Data
During the Indiana Board hearing, Blesich presented information indicating that
three properties located on his street sold for less per square foot than what his property
was assessed at per square foot. (See generally Cert. Admin. R. at 59, 78.) With respect
to these properties, Blesich generally provided their addresses, sale dates, square
2
While Blesich also initially complained that he had been prejudiced by the fact that the Indiana
Board failed to conduct its administrative hearing and issue its final determination in a timely
manner, he subsequently withdrew that complaint from the Court’s consideration. (Compare Pet’r
Br. Real Estate Tax Appeal at 3 with Pet’r Resp. Resp’t Br Real Estate Tax Appeal at 6-7.)
4
footages, and, in a couple instances, a written statement that “[this house] has a finished
basement” or “[t]his house . . . [has] 4 bedrooms and a larger garage.” (See Cert. Admin.
R. at 59.) Blesich provided no other comparison of these properties to his own. (See
Cert. Admin. R. at 59, 87-129.)
This Court has repeatedly reminded litigants that when they present evidence to
the Indiana Board, it is their duty to walk the Indiana Board through every element of their
analysis. See, e.g., Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 802
N.E.2d 1018, 1022 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004), review denied. Thus, litigants must provide
specific reasons why they believe a property is comparable or how any differences might
impact their value. See Lacy Diversified Indus., Ltd. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799
N.E.2d 1215, 1221 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003). General statements that another property is
“similar” or “comparable” simply because it is on the same street are nothing more than
conclusions. Conclusory statements do not constitute probative evidence. Whitley
Prods., Inc. v State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998),
review denied. Rather, Blesich was required to explain to the Indiana Board the
characteristics of his own property, how those characteristics compared to those of the
other properties, and how any differences in any of their characteristics affected their
values. See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 470-71 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005),
review denied. Because the administrative record indicates that no such explanation was
made, the Indiana Board did not err when it determined that Blesich’s sales data was not
probative.
5
Blesich’s Appraisal
Indiana’s assessment regulations provided that the 2007, 2008, and 2009
assessments were to reflect a property’s value as of January 1, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
See 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 21-3-3(b) (2007) (see http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/)
(indicating that prior to 2010, a property’s March 1 assessment was to reflect a property’s
market value-in-use on January 1 of the preceding year) (repealed 2010). In 2010,
however, a property was to be valued as of its March 1 assessment date. See 50 IND.
ADMIN. CODE 27-5-2(c) (2010) (see http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/) (indicating that in
2010, property valuation and assessment dates were the same (i.e., March 1)).
Consequently, Blesich’s appraisal, which valued his property at $275,000 as of March 9,
2012, had no bearing on the 2007 through 2010 assessments unless it was accompanied
by some explanation as to how its value related back. See O’Donnell v. Dep’t of Local
Gov’t Fin., 854 N.E.2d 90, 95 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006).
On appeal, Blesich essentially maintains that no such explanation was needed:
the Indiana Board should have made the reasonable inference that if his property was
valued at $275,000 in 2012, it would have been even less during the assessment years
at issue, which were part of “one of the . . . biggest depressed periods [in] real estate
property values” in the United States on record. (See Oral Arg. Tr. at 8-9, 12-13; Pet’r Br.
at 2.) As previously noted, however, it was Blesich’s duty to walk the Indiana Board
through every element of his analysis. Therefore, Blesich was required to trend his 2012
appraisal back to a 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and/or a 2010 value. Because he did not,
(see Cert. Admin. R. at 57-79, 87-129), the Indiana Board properly determined that the
appraisal carried no weight.
6
CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, the Indiana Board’s final determination in this matter
is AFFIRMED.
7