The Petitioners contend that their property’s value was too high in 2011 based on the property’s appraised value. The Respondent, however, argues that the appraisal is hearsay. “Hearsay” is "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at [] trial or hearing offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See Ind. Evidence Rules 801(c), 802. Such a “statement” can be either oral or written. Here, the appraiser who prepared the appraisal did not appear at the hearing to testify and be cross examined. Consequently, the appraisal is hearsay. Nevertheless, hearsay evidence is admissible with significant limitations:
Hearsay evidence, as defined by the Indiana Rules of Evidence (Rule 801) may be admitted. If the hearsay evidence is not objected to, the evidence may form the basis for a determination. However, if the evidence is: (1) properly objected to; and (2) does not fall within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule; the resulting determination may not be based solely upon the hearsay evidence. 52 IAC 2-7-3.
The Petitioners contend that, in the appraisal, the appraiser determined a site value for the land of $125,000 and a total value for the property of $380,000. Petitioner Exhibit 1. According to Mr. Kropp, subtracting the appraised land value from the total property value results in an improvement value of $255,000. The Petitioners contend that adding the $255,000 appraised value of the improvements to the land’s 2011 assessed value of $59,900 results in a total value of $314,900. Thus, because the Petitioners’ calculation is based solely on the $125,000 appraised value of the land, the Petitioners’ appraisal forms the foundation of the Petitioners’ entire case. But, because the hearsay objection was raised, the appraisal alone is not a sufficient basis for lowering the property’s assessment. Therefore, because the Petitioners failed to present any “non-hearsay” evidence to support their request for an improvement value of $255,000, or a total assessed value of $314,900, the Petitioners failed to raise a prima facie case that their property’s assessed value should be reduced in 2011.
Even if the Board considered the Petitioners’ appraisal, the Petitioners’ case would still fail to support the $314,900 value for their property that they seek for 2011. The Petitioners base their valuation calculation on a $125,000 “land value” in their appraisal, but that estimated value came in the context of a cost approach valuation that the appraiser chose not to ultimately develop. The land value is not supported by any sales in the appraisal; nor is there any evidence as to how the appraiser arrived at that value except for a general explanation that “site values are derived utilizing land sales from the subject market area. In cases of limited or no land sales, the land extraction method is used.” Petitioner Exhibit 1. The only information specific to the Petitioners’ property is the appraiser’s note that “due to the subjects [sic] large site area, the site value exceeds 30% of the total value.” Id. Thus, the appraisal’s “land value” is insufficiently probative to support the calculations that follow. See Inland Steel v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 739 N.E.2d 201, 220 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000) (stating that testimony of a recognized appraisal expert without explanation is conclusory and lacks probative value).
