The disputed 2011 PTABOA assessment is $217,400. The Respondent presented Mr. Sceifers’ testimony and his appraisal, which both concluded that the value of the subject property was $300,000 as of March 1, 2011. The Respondent offered evidence of Mr. Sceifers’ qualifications and otherwise established that his appraisal is relevant, probative evidence. Furthermore, there was no objection to this testimony or appraisal. The Respondent at least satisfied the initial burden to support the existing assessed value with this evidence. Therefore, our analysis moves to the next level, which involves weighing all the evidence in order to reach a conclusion about the most accurate market value-in-use for the subject property.
The
Petitioner offered evidence and argument that various features were incorrect
on his property record card. But even if the property record card has errors
concerning hog barns, a basement garage, and land classification, the
Petitioner failed to make his case by simply contesting the methodology used to
compute the assessment. Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 841 N.E.2d
674, 677 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). To successfully make his case he needed to show
the assessment does not accurately reflect the subject property’s market
value-in-use. Id.; see also P/A Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings
County Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (explaining that
proper focus is not on methodology, but rather, on what the correct value
actually is). The Petitioner failed to prove what a more accurate value for the
subject property would be if these purported data errors were corrected.
Therefore, they do not help him prove his case.
Ultimately,
this final determination boils down to whether the Board is more persuaded by
the Sceifers appraisal and testimony about the entire property or by the Ramoni
appraisal of only the house and 1-acre homesite. In this case, neither side
presented evidence that is particularly convincing. Both may have significant
weaknesses; however, the Board must operate within the limitations
explained in Meridian Towers East & West v. Washington Twp. Assessor,
805 N.E.2d 475, 480 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003) (explaining that the Board exceeds its
authority where it attempts to make the case for a party).
The
Ramoni appraisal concluded that the value of the house and 1-acre homesite is
$85,000. The Sceifers appraisal concluded the entire property has a value of
$300,000, but it does not separate anything for just the house and homesite.
Neither party attempted to directly compare these numbers. And the Board finds
nothing in the record that allows it to do so—trying to compare these two
appraisals is like trying to compare apples to oranges. This kind of disconnect
unnecessarily complicates the analysis of the issue.
Comparing
the Ramoni appraised value to the current assessed value for the house and
homesite, however, is possible. The PRC indicates the assessed value of the
house is $109,000 and the assessed value of the homesite is $10,000. Thus, the
difference between the current assessment for that part of the property and the
value arguably supported by the Ramoni appraisal is $34,000. If the Petitioner
had confined his appeal to only the house and homesite, the Board might have
simply ordered a change that reduced the current assessment by that amount. But
he did not limit the appeal to just that part of the property. Therefore, the
overall valuation approach in the Sceifers appraisal is appropriate to
consider.
Mr.
Sceifers testified to explain his conclusions and answer questions. For
example, noting that his adjustments were unusually large, he explained that
the land adjustments were made because agricultural market values vary
considerably from the mandated agricultural land base rate. In contrast, Mr.
Ramoni did not appear at the hearing. This distinction makes a significant
difference in the relative weight we assign to each appraisal. The testimony
provided by Mr. Sceifers to explain his appraisal (and the opportunity for
cross examination) helps establish his appraisal as the more credible document
in this case.
We
make this determination in favor of the Sceifers opinion about the value of the
subject property even though the Petitioner’s cross examination revealed
troubling responses about Mr. Sceifers’ knowledge regarding the selling price
of different types of agricultural land in Washington County. The Petitioner’s
attempt to impeach the appraiser about land valuation, however, was not
sufficiently developed to be very meaningful. In addition, the Petitioner made
virtually no attempt at impeachment or rebuttal on anything else.
Although
the evidence contains two appraisals, in this particular case we do not
consider either appraisal to be particularly strong evidence. It should be
recognized that the Board’s determination is primarily the result of satisfying
minimum requirements. It is not an indication of anything that a party
should strive to achieve.
