The
sale price of $78,000 in 1992 is not probative evidence for this case because
nothing in the record relates it forward to the required valuation date, which
was eighteen years later. The record does not establish what kind of movement
there might have been with general market conditions during that time. The
record lacks substantial evidence or explanation to form any legitimate
conclusion about a more accurate value for the subject property eighteen years
later.
Petitioner
compared the subject property to the assessment values of properties in the
same neighborhood. The values of the “comparables” were from the 2012
assessment. Petitioner failed to relate these values back to the 2010
assessment. Therefore, the evidence regarding the 2012 assessed values lacks
probative value.
Furthermore,
even if Petitioner had related the values back, most of the neighboring
properties were not comparable to the subject. One of the parcels had a trailer
as its improvement. Another parcel was an unimproved lot. A third parcel was
assessed as commercial property. And finally, Petitioner did not give an
assessed value for the last property she compared to the subject. Instead,
Petitioner gave its sale price from November 2011. The Petitioner did little to
explain how the relevant characteristics of those properties were similar to
the characteristics of the subject property. See Long v. Wayne Twp.
Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 470 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005)(finding that taxpayers
failed to establish comparability where they did not discuss the
characteristics of the properties being compared). The Respondent likewise
failed to explain how any differences between the properties affected their
relative market values. Id.
Petitioner
testified that she reached her contended values for the subject property by
looking at sales prices of other properties in the neighborhood as well as the
value for which she must insure her property. She provided no actual evidence
demonstrating the neighboring homes’ sale prices and no documentation of an
insurance policy. Such conclusory statements are not probative evidence. Whitley
Products v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct.
1998) (stating that conclusory statements do not qualify as probative
evidence).
Petitioner
also testified that she could rebuild the subject property residence for $60,000,
which is much less than the value for which it was assessed. Petitioner used
her experience of buying and selling homes as well as her practice of doing her
own repairs as the explanation for her knowledge of the cost to rebuild. Once
again, such conclusory statements are not probative evidence. Whitley
Products, 704 N.E.2d at 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998) (stating that conclusory
statements do not qualify as probative evidence). This falls short of the type
of detailed facts and analysis that might support a legitimate conclusion about
building costs for the subject property. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471
(Ind. Tax Ct. 2005).
Petitioner
made the argument that the subject property used to be agricultural. Respondent
testified that the area has not been assessed as agricultural in 20 to 30
years. How the property was assessed in prior years has no bearing on how the
property was assessed in 2010.
Much
of the Petitioner’s case merely focused on the condition of the property. Ms. Tala’s
testimony established that the subject property’s exterior condition was poor.
The Assessment Guidelines have six condition ratings from excellent to very
poor. GUIDELINES–app. B at 7 (incorporated by reference at 50 IAC 2.3-01-2).
Determining a condition rating for the subject property, however, is just one
of the many steps in the Guidelines. It does not directly answer the essential
question, which is value.
The
Petitioner failed to make her case based on the evidence and arguments related
to condition. Even if the condition of the subject property really was very
poor on March 1, 2010, that point does not prove what a more accurate value is.
One cannot make a case based on whether the Guidelines were applied properly. Eckerling
v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674,677 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). To
successfully make her case, the Petitioner needed to show the assessment does
not accurately reflect 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). She did not do so.
