313 Studebaker Land Trust
Here, the Petitioner simply
offered no probative evidence. While Ms. Penn testified as to the property’s
current status, she admittedly knew nothing about its condition or value as of
the assessment dates in question. The only information about the property she
was able to provide at the hearing was that the house was demolished by the
City of South Bend and it is a vacant lot. Ms. Penn did not indicate when the
house was demolished. She had no knowledge, and offered no evidence, with
respect to the value of the property on the assessment dates. Because the
Petitioner failed to offer any evidence of the subject property’s value on the
relevant valuation dates, it failed to make a prima facie case that the
assessments are wrong. Consequently, the Respondent’s duty to support the
assessment with substantial evidence was not triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t
Fin., 799
N.E.2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003).
517 Allen Land Trust
Here, the Petitioner offered no
probative evidence. While Ms. Penn testified as to the property’s current
condition, she admittedly knew nothing about its condition or value as of the
assessment dates in question. She possessed no information regarding the property
for 2007 and 2008. Because the Petitioner wholly failed to offer any evidence
of the subject property’s value on the relevant valuation dates, it failed to make
a prima facie case that the assessments are wrong. Consequently, the Respondent’s
duty to support the assessment with substantial evidence was not triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t
Fin., 799
N.E.2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003).
646 Diamond Land Trust
Here, the Petitioner offered no
probative evidence. While Ms. Penn testified as to the property’s current
status, she admittedly knew nothing about its condition or value as of the
assessment dates in question. In fact, Ms. Penn stated she had no case. The only
information about the property she was able to provide at the hearing was that the
house was demolished by the City of South Bend and is a vacant lot. Ms. Penn did
not indicate when the house was demolished. She had no knowledge of the value of
the property on the assessment dates. The Petitioner failed to offer any
evidence of the value on the relevant valuation dates and thus failed to make a
prima facie case that the assessments are wrong. Consequently, the
Respondent’s duty to support the assessment with substantial evidence was not
triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus.v.
Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003).
425 Walnut Land Trust
Here, the Petitioner simply
offered no probative evidence as to the value of the property on the assessment
dates. The only information Ms. Penn possessed about the property was that it
had been through a tax sale at some point and was vacant at the time of the
hearing. She admittedly knew nothing about its condition or value as of the
assessment dates in question. Because the Petitioner failed to offer any evidence
of the subject property’s value on the relevant valuation dates, it failed to make
a prima facie case that the assessments are wrong. Consequently, the Respondent’s duty to support the
assessment with substantial evidence was not triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215,
1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003).
