The subject property is assessed too high in light of both a realtor’s opinion of value and a certified appraisal. Even without the documentary evidence, it is common knowledge that property values have gone down. Bollhauer argument/testimony.
…
Because the Assessor properly made a hearsay objection to the realtor’s opinion of value and the appraisal, those documents are not sufficient bases for lowering the assessment. The only non-hearsay evidence on the record is Mr. Bollhauer’s testimony that property values have gone down. This conclusory testimony, however, does not prove the current assessment is wrong or support a specific lower value. Mr. Bollhauer failed to make a prima facie case for changing his assessment.
Even without the Assessor’s objections, the result would have been the same. The realtor’s opinion of value purports to rely on a sales comparison approach. But the actual comparability of the properties being examined must be established. Conclusory statements that a property is “similar” or “comparable” to another property do not constitute probative evidence of the comparability of the properties being examined. Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 470 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). The party seeking to rely on the sales comparison approach must explain the characteristics of the subject property and how those characteristics compare to those of the purportedly comparable properties. Any differences between the properties must be explained. Then the comparison must establish what those differences do to the relative values of the properties. See Id. at 470-71.
While the overall presentation and adjustments in the realtor’s opinion of value resembles what an appraiser might do to some extent, an appraiser’s work is backed by education, training, and experience. An appraiser also typically certifies compliance with USPAP. Thus, the Board, as the trier-of-fact, can infer that the appraiser used objective data, where available, to quantify his or her adjustments. And where objective data was not available, the Board can infer that the appraiser relied on education, training and experience to estimate a reliable quantification. There is no evidence that the preparer of the Bischoff Realty document is a licensed appraiser. Moreover, there is no certification that the preparer of this document complied with USPAP. The Board would not have found the realtor’s opinion probative even without the hearsay objection.
An appraisal performed in conformance with generally recognized appraisal principles is often enough to establish a prima facie case that a property’s assessment is overvalued. See Meridian Towers, 805 N.E.2d at 479. Here, however, the appraiser estimated the value approximately two years after the required valuation date. Nothing in the record relates the appraised value to the March 1, 2010. Therefore, the appraisal is not probative evidence. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471.
