Gabrielle Snyder v. Dearborn County Assessor

• Court: Indiana Tax Court
• Decided: December 13, 2024
• Docket: 23T-TA-00025
• Status: Published

Opinion

PETITIONER APPEARING PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: GABRIELLE SNYDER THEODORE E. ROKITA Guilford, IN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA TRENT D. BENNETT STEPHEN J. REEN DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL Indianapolis, IN

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT

GABRIELLE SNYDER, ) ) FILED Petitioner, ) ) Dec 13 2024, 3:03 pm

v. ) Case No. 23T-TA-00025 CLERK Indiana Supreme Court ) Court of Appeals and Tax Court DEARBORN COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) ) Respondent. )

ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW

FOR PUBLICATION December 13, 2024

MCADAM, J.

This original tax appeal challenges the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s (“Indiana

Board” or “Board”) decision to uphold the 2022 assessment of the taxpayer’s residential

property. The taxpayer contends that the assessment is excessive compared to prior

years and comparable properties. Upon review, the Court holds that the Board did not

err in upholding the assessment and affirms the Board’s final determination.

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Taxpayer Gabrielle Snyder’s Guilford, Indiana, property consists of a one-and-a- half story home featuring 1,582 square feet of finished area and a 1,034 square-foot

unfinished basement, situated on a 1.64-acre lot. The Dearborn County Assessor

assigned the property an assessed value of $207,600 for 2022, approximately a 37%

increase from its 2021 assessment of $152,000.

Snyder appealed the 2022 assessment first to the Dearborn County Property Tax

Assessment Board of Appeals and then to the Indiana Board. At the Board’s hearing,

the Assessor stipulated that she bore the burden of proof under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-

15-20, as the property’s assessment increase exceeded 5% year-over-year. The

Assessor presented evidence to justify the 2022 assessment, including a ratio study, an

appraisal, and supporting testimony from an appraiser. The appraisal relied exclusively

on the sales comparison approach, using three comparable properties to value the

subject property at $242,000 for the 2022 assessment date. 1 It was completed in

conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”),

and its valuation was roughly $35,000 above the assessed value. Nonetheless, both the

Assessor and the appraiser defended the 2022 assessment as reasonable, pointing to

rising county home sale prices since 2019 and noting that assessed values typically

trailed market values.

Snyder responded by challenging the validity of the appraisal, arguing that the

three comparable properties were “quite different” from her home because they had

value-enhancing features that her property lacked. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 211-17.) She

noted that these properties offered superior amenities, including fireplaces, lakefront

1 The sales comparison approach “estimates the total value of the property directly by comparing it to similar, or comparable, properties that have sold in the market.” 2021 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL (“Manual”) (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.4-1-2 (2020)) at 2. 2 locations, wraparound decks, and new concrete patios with built-in gas grills. She also

pointed to additional features such as kitchen islands, outdoor kitchens, fire pits,

updated or wood flooring, finished lower-level spaces, and brick and vinyl siding

combinations. Lastly, she noted that at least one property had one or more apartments.

In addition, she offered her own evidence to show that the 2022 assessment was

excessive, including a valuation by a realtor placing her property in the upper

$140,000s; data retrieved from the Beacon online property search tool for two similarly

sized properties with assessed values in the low $150,000s for 2022; and data from

Beacon showing four similarly assessed properties that were newer, larger, or had

additional features her property lacked, such as a barn or brick exteriors. She also

noted that the assessment may have used an incorrect square footage and overlooked

issues depicted in her photographs, emails to the county, and repair estimates,

including the “swampy” backyard, the “collapsed vanity[,]” the inoperable restrooms, and

the deferred repairs. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 44, 53, 85-113, 211-17.) Snyder further

questioned the assessment’s equity by pointing to its disproportionate increase: while

most county properties saw increases of 6% to 9% from 2021 to 2022, her assessment

jumped by 36.5%.

The Board issued its final determination, upholding Snyder’s 2022 assessment

and determining that the Assessor’s appraisal provided a credible value estimate that

“Snyder did not significantly impeach[.]” (See Cert. Admin. R. at 184 ¶ 17(d).) The Board

acknowledged Snyder’s evidence of her property’s deficiencies and differences from

other properties but found that she failed to demonstrate how these factors impacted

her property’s value. The Board also rejected her uniformity and equality challenge,

3 concluding that she did not present sufficient evidence to support the claim. Despite the

appraisal’s higher valuation, the Board ordered the assessment to remain unchanged

because the Assessor had not requested an upward adjustment.

Snyder filed a petition for rehearing with the Board, claiming that the Assessor

had not disclosed the comparable properties used in the appraisal until the day of the

hearing and that the appraiser relied on “drive-by” visual inspections of the comparables

when valuing her property. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 188.) She renewed her objections to

the comparability of her home and the three comparable properties, emphasizing both

the value-enhancing features identified during the Board’s hearing and their locations in

private communities. Snyder also revisited her earlier evidence, including the realtor’s

valuation of her property, her home’s lack of renovations, and her comparisons of the

features, historical assessed values, and the varying assessment increases among

properties she considered more and less comparable to her own. The Board denied

Snyder’s petition for rehearing.

Snyder subsequently initiated this original tax appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court’s review of Indiana Board decisions is governed by Indiana Code

§ 33-26-6-6, the provisions of which closely mirror those controlling judicial review of

administrative decisions governed by Indiana’s Administrative Orders and Procedures

Act (“AOPA”). Compare IND. CODE § 33-26-6-6(e) (2024) with IND. CODE § 4-21.5-5-

14(d) (2024). Under Indiana Code § 33-26-6-6, the party seeking to overturn a final

determination of the Board bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. I.C. § 33-26-

6-6(b). Challengers must demonstrate that they have been prejudiced by a final

4 determination of the Board that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or

immunity; in excess of or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without

observance of the procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable

evidence. I.C. § 33-26-6-6(e).

The Legislature has specifically designated the Board as the trier of fact, charged

with determining the relevance and weight to be assigned to the evidence before it. See

IND. CODE §§ 6-1.1-15-4(p), -20(f) (2024). Like the review of administrative decisions

subject to AOPA, this Court reviews legal conclusions de novo but affords deference to

the factual determinations of the Board if they are supported by substantial and reliable

evidence. See I.C. § 33-26-6-6(e)(5); Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n v. Spirited

Sales, LLC, 79 N.E.3d 371, 375 (Ind. 2017) (articulating the standard of review of

administrative decisions under AOPA); Kellam v. Fountain Cnty. Assessor, 999 N.E.2d

120, 122 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013) (articulating the standard of review for Board decisions),

review denied. The Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board by

reweighing the evidence or reevaluating the credibility of witnesses. See IND. CODE §

33-26-6-3(b) (2024); Kellam, 999 N.E.2d 122.

DISCUSSION

Snyder, who proceeds pro se, continues to express the concerns and arguments

she previously presented to the Board. 2 She challenges the comparability of the three

comparable properties, disputes the assessment increase as disproportionate, and

restates her claims about her property’s deficiencies, historical assessed values, lack of

2 Snyder does not appear to have provided any statutory grounds to support her challenge to the Board’s final determination. 5 renovations, the “drive-by appraisal[,]” and the realtor’s valuation. (See Pet’r Br. at 2;

Pet’r Reply Br. at 1-6.) Her approach, while thoughtful, seeks to re-examine the Board’s

factual findings and falls outside this Court’s limited scope of review.

This Court’s review of the Board’s final determinations is limited. The Court acts

as an intermediate, record-reviewing body rather than a factfinder. Gold Coast Rand

Dev. Corp. v. Lake Cnty. Assessor, 197 N.E.3d 1274, 1279 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2022) (“It is

well settled . . . that in challenges to the final determinations of the Indiana Board, the

Tax Court is a record-reviewing court – an intermediate reviewer – not the trier of fact.”)

(citations omitted); but see I.C. § 6-1.1-15-20(f) (“In an appeal under this chapter, the

Indiana board shall, as trier of fact, weigh the evidence and decide the true tax value of

the property as compelled by the totality of the probative evidence before it.”). Well-

settled precedent establishes that this Court may not reweigh evidence or reassess

witness credibility when reviewing the Board’s final determinations, as doing so would

improperly substitute the Court’s judgment for the Board’s. See, e.g., Garrett LLC v.

Noble Cnty. Assessor, 112 N.E.3d 1168, 1176 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2018) (“The Court cannot

and will not reweigh the evidence – to do so, would improperly give [the petitioning

party] a second bite at the apple.”) (citation omitted); Kellam, 999 N.E.2d 122. The

Board’s administrative law judges directly observe witnesses’ conduct and demeanor

during testimony, placing them in unique positions to make credibility determinations.

See Kraus v. Kraus, 132 N.E.2d 608, 610 (Ind. 1956) (explaining that appellate courts

“deal[] with a cold record and cannot observe the witnesses, their conduct, and manner

of testifying while on the witness stand”). By contrast, this Court’s review of a cold

record inherently lacks that vantage point. Snyder’s arguments, however, indicate she is

6 seeking a new evidentiary hearing on appeal. Such a request exceeds the Court’s

limited scope of review.

Snyder had the opportunity to present her contentions to the Board’s designated

administrative law judge at the administrative hearing. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-20(e) (“Both

parties in an appeal under this chapter may present evidence of the true tax value of the

property, seeking to decrease or increase the assessment.”). She presented seven

exhibits comprised of various documents, cross-examined witnesses, and offered

testimony on her own behalf. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 204-17.) The Board determined

that Snyder did not “significantly impeach” the Assessor’s USPAP-compliant appraisal,

which it found credibly valued the subject property at $242,000. (See Cert. Admin. R. at

184-86 ¶ 17(d), (j).) The Board also found that Snyder failed to present sufficient

evidence to support a reduction in the assessment. The Board declined to increase

Snyder’s 2022 assessment to align with the appraisal valuation because the Assessor

had not requested this relief. 3

Substantial record evidence supports these findings. Under the substantial

evidence standard, the Board’s decision will stand so long as there is enough “‘relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”

Clark-Pleasant Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Dep’t of Loc. Gov’t Fin., 899 N.E.2d 762, 765 (Ind.

Tax Ct. 2008) (citation omitted). Snyder’s cross-examination of the Assessor was limited

3 The Board’s decision not to increase the assessment, despite the evidence presented, because the Assessor did not explicitly request an increase, may raise questions under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-20(f). This statute directs the Board to “weigh the evidence and decide the true tax value of the property as compelled by the totality of the probative evidence before it” and permits a determination “higher or lower than the assessment or the value proposed by a party or witness.” IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-20(f) (2024). However, as neither party has raised this issue on appeal, the Court reserves further analysis for another day. 7 to confirming that the Assessor, rather than her predecessor, approved of the 2019

value assigned to her home. (Cert. Admin. R. at 204-05.) Similarly, her cross-

examination of the appraiser focused only on verifying the square footage used to value

her home and identifying the three comparable properties. (Cert. Admin. R. at 207.)

Moreover, as noted by the Board, Snyder failed to explain how “relevant differences”

between her property and the comparable properties affected the valuations. (See Cert.

Admin. R. at 184-85 ¶ 17(f) (“While [Snyder] did identify some differences between the

comparable properties and the subject property, she did not offer any evidence or

analysis demonstrating how those differences affected the properties’ overall market

values-in-use.”),188-92, 211-15 (where Snyder identifies but does not quantify certain

deficiencies in her property and differences between her property and the other

properties in evidence).)

The Board served as the factfinder, and this Court defers to its role and may not

substitute its own judgment unless there is a showing of an abuse of discretion. See

Monroe Cnty. Assessor v. Strychalski, 176 N.E.3d 267, 271 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2021) (“In

reviewing a final determination, the Court cannot usurp the Indiana Board’s prerogative

as the trier of fact by reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses

absent an abuse of discretion.”) (citation omitted). While the Court acknowledges

Snyder’s continued disagreement with the Board’s determination and her desire for a

more favorable outcome, that disagreement cannot override the substantial evidence

supporting the Board’s findings. Accordingly, the Court denies her request to reduce the

property’s 2022 assessment and subsequent assessed values and holds that the Board

8 did not err in upholding the 2022 assessment. 4

CONCLUSION

Snyder has not demonstrated that the Board erred in upholding the 2022

assessment of her property. The Board’s final determination in this matter is AFFIRMED.

4 Snyder also contends that the Assessor failed to comply with Indiana Code § 6-1.1-35.7-3 and lacked the necessary assessment certifications. The administrative record, however, does not indicate that these claims were raised before the Board. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 188-92, 195- 217.) Because issues must be presented at the administrative level before they can be considered on appeal, these arguments are waived and cannot be addressed here. See Inland Steel Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 739 N.E.2d 201, 220 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000) (explaining that when a taxpayer fails to raise an issue administratively, it cannot be considered on judicial review), review denied. 9