The parcels at issue are three lots located at 435 Lane 200 East, Lake James in Angola, Indiana. Parcel 76-06-03-420-608.000-011 ("Parcel 608") contains a house and has 35 feet of frontage on Lake James. Parcel 76-06-03-420-609.000-011 ("Parcel 609") abuts Parcel 608, and has 24 feet of frontage on Lake James. It appears that Ms. Robison treated these two parcels as a single economic unit, and the parties on appeal addressed the parcels as a single unit. The Board therefore refers to Parcels 608 and 609 as Ms. Robison’s "homesite." Parcel 76-06-03-420-644.010-011 ("Parcel 644") is vacant. It sits mostly behind Parcel 609 and has frontage on a channel of Lake James.
...
As explained above, the parties both addressed the parcels under appeal as two separate economic units: (1) the homesite, which consists of Parcels 608 and 609, and (2) Parcel 644—the stand-alone vacant parcel. Neither of those units’ assessments changed from March 1, 2007 to March 1, 2008. Ms. Robison therefore had the burden of proving that she was entitled to any reduction in the parcels’ March 1, 2008 assessments. By contrast, the assessments for the homesite and Parcel 644 each increased by significantly more than 5% between the March 1, 2006 and March 1, 2007 assessment dates. Thus, the Assessor had the burden of proof in Ms. Robison’s appeals of the parcels’ March 1, 2007 assessments, at least to the extent that Ms. Robison sought to have those assessments returned to their 2006 levels. Of course, Ms. Robison sought an even greater reduction, and she bore the burden of proving that the parcels assessments should be reduced below their 2006 levels.
...
Based on Mr. Lindsay’s appraisal, Ms. Robison proved that the homesite’s March 1, 2008 assessment should be reduced to a total of $260,000. Ms. Robison, however, did not explain how Mr. Lindsay’s appraisal related to the homesite’s market value-in-use as of the valuation date that applied to the property’s March 1, 2007 assessment. So she was not entitled to have the homesite’s assessment reduced to $260,000 for that assessment date. Nonetheless, the Assessor had the burden of justifying the increase over the homesite’s March 1, 2006 assessment. Because the Assessor failed to meet her burden, Ms. Robison was entitled to have the homesite’s March 1, 2007 assessment reduced to its 2006 level of $315,700.
As to Parcel 644, Ms. Robison failed to meet her burden of proof concerning the parcel’s March 1, 2008 assessment. The Board therefore affirms that assessment. Based on Ms. Putnam’s appraisal, however, Ms. Robison proved that Parcel 644’s March 1, 2007 assessment should be reduced to $21,600.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Robison_76-011-07-1-5-00067_et_al.pdf
