Muir Woods Section One Assn., Inc. v. Marion County Assessosr

• Court: Indiana Tax Court
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 24T-TA-00008
• Status: Published

Opinion

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONERS: ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: JAMES K. GILDAY JESSICA R. GASTINEAU GILDAY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT

MUIR WOODS SECTION ONE ASSN., ) INC.; MUIR WOODS, INC.; SPRUCE ) FILED KNOLL HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., INC.; ) Feb 18 2025, 2:03 pm and OAKMONT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., ) CLERK INC., ) Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 24T-TA-00008 ) MARION COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR PUBLICATION February 18, 2025

MCADAM, J.

This appeal presents a significant question about the Tax Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction under Indiana’s direct appeal statute, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(g). The

Indiana Board of Tax Review (the “Indiana Board” or “Board”) summarily dismissed the

taxpayers’ appeal under its failure to appear rule, 52 Indiana Administrative Code 4-9-4,

after the taxpayers failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. The taxpayers now argue

that their motion objecting to the dismissal constituted a petition for rehearing under

Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(a). In their view, this allows them to bypass the administrative process and triggers this Court’s direct appeal jurisdiction as the Board

did not decide the motion by the statutory deadline for deciding petitions for rehearing.

The Court disagrees and concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the

taxpayers’ motion invoked the Board's distinct failure to appear process rather than its

rehearing process, which is not a ground for direct appeal under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-

15-5(g).

BACKGROUND

Taxpayers Muir Woods Section One Association Inc., Muir Woods, Inc., Spruce

Knoll Homeowners Association, Inc., and Oakmont Homeowners Association, Inc.

(collectively, the “Homeowners Associations”) are homeowners associations that owned

forty-seven parcels of common area land in several Indianapolis subdivisions during the

2001-2003 tax years. (Pet. Jud. Rev. (“Pet’rs’ Pet.”) ¶¶ 46-47, Ex. D.) In August 2015,

more than nine years ago, the Homeowners Associations asked the Indiana Board to

decide whether their land qualified for the common area property tax exemption,

whether the Marion County Assessor improperly failed to apply a base rate discount,

and whether their land had been subjected to double taxation. See Muir Woods Section

One Ass’n v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (Muir Woods I), 154 N.E.3d 877, 879 (Ind. Tax Ct.

2020), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded sub nom. Muir Woods Section One

Ass’n v. O’Connor (Muir Woods II), 172 N.E.3d 1205 (Ind. 2021). Three years later, the

Assessor moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Id. The Board granted the

motion, finding that the Homeowners Associations had pursued their claims using an

improper procedural mechanism. See id. at 879-80.

On appeal, this Court affirmed the Board’s dismissal of the exemption and

2 discount factor claims but reversed its dismissal of the double taxation claim. See id. at

883. The Court explained that the Homeowners Associations were entitled to present

evidence on the double taxation claim because no administrative hearing had been

held. Id. The Homeowners Associations then appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.

See Muir Woods II, 172 N.E.3d at 1205-08. The Supreme Court determined that the

discount factor claim should not have been dismissed and remanded both the discount

factor and double taxation claims to the Indiana Board for further proceedings. Id. at

1207-08.

This appeal stems from the events following the Supreme Court’s remand, after

which the Indiana Board scheduled a hearing for December 15, 2021, to address the

Homeowners Associations’ remaining claims.1 (See Cert. Admin. R. at 558-66.) The

Board’s scheduling order warned that “[i]f the person filing this petition, or their

authorized representative, does not attend the hearing, this petition may be denied.”

(Cert. Admin. R. at 566.) After the Homeowners Associations failed to appear, the

Board dismissed the appeal under its administrative rule allowing dismissal for failure to

appear on December 22, 2021, through an order entitled “Notice of Dismissal - Failure

to Appear” (the “Dismissal Order”).2 (Cert. Admin. R. at 2184.) The Board’s Dismissal

1 Indiana Evidence Rule 201 permits courts to take judicial notice of “records of a court of this state[.]” Ind. Evidence Rule 201(b)(5); accord Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154, 1160 (Ind. 2016). Accordingly, the Court takes judicial notice of its own records, specifically the certified administrative record, briefs, and oral argument transcript filed in Muir Woods Section One Association Inc., et al. v. Monroe County Assessor, Cause No. 22T-TA-00001. All citations to the certified administrative record in this opinion refer to that record. 2 The Dismissal Order references the predecessor to the current administrative rule, 52 Indiana Administrative Code 2-10-1, which was repealed in 2020 and replaced in 2022 with the substantially similar 52 Indiana Administrative Code 4-9-4. See Muir Woods Section One Ass’n v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (Muir Woods III), 225 N.E.3d 236, 240 n.2 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2023). 3 Order stated that the Homeowners Associations could file an “objection” within ten days,

explaining their failure to appear and demonstrating good cause, and that the Board

could, at its discretion, schedule another remand hearing. (Cert. Admin. R. at 2184.) On

January 3, 2022, the Homeowners Associations filed a motion seeking to reverse the

Board’s dismissal, entitled “Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Notice of Dismissal” (the

“Motion to Vacate”). (Cert. Admin. R. at 2185-2225.) A week later, on January 10, 2022,

the Board took the Motion to Vacate under advisement and scheduled a hearing for

February 11, 2022, to address it along with several other pending matters. (See Cert.

Admin. R. at 2242-44.)

Three days later, on January 13, 2022, while the Motion to Vacate was pending,

the Board also denied the Homeowners Associations’ motion for partial summary

judgment, which had been filed just before the December 15 hearing. (Cert. Admin. R.

at 2245-46.) The Homeowners Associations sought reconsideration of the ruling by

filing a motion, titled “Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Summary Judgment,” on

January 18, 2022. (Cert. Admin. R. at 2276-84.) Then, despite the ongoing

administrative proceedings, the Homeowners Associations filed an appeal with this

Court on February 7, 2022, leading to the decision in Muir Woods Section One

Association, Inc. v. Marion County Assessor (Muir Woods III), 225 N.E.3d 236 (Ind. Tax

Ct. 2023). (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2285-2314.)

In Muir Woods III, this Court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

because the Homeowners Associations’ appeal was premature as the Board had not

yet issued an appealable final determination. See id., 225 N.E.3d at 244. The Court

found that the Board’s Dismissal Order ceased to qualify as an appealable final

4 determination once the Board took the Homeowners Associations’ Motion to Vacate

under advisement and scheduled it for hearing. See id. at 243. In its decision, this Court

treated the Motion to Vacate as a petition for rehearing under Subsection 5(a) of Indiana

Code § 6-1.1-15-5. See id. at 242-44. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal and

remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings. Id. at 244.

This appeal arises from the Board’s response to the Court’s remand order. On

February 20, 2024, after the decision in Muir Woods III, the Board issued an order

setting another remand hearing in the appeal. (See Pet’rs’ Pet. ¶¶ 34-35, Ex. B.) The

order stated that the April 1, 2024, hearing would address “all pending matters,

including” the Motion to Vacate, the applicability of deadlines under the petition for

rehearing framework, any outstanding case management issues, and the discount

factor and double taxation claims. (See Pet’rs’ Pet., Ex. B.) On March 1, 2024, the

Homeowners Associations moved to continue the portion of the hearing related to their

primary claims and requested the establishment of a case management plan for

resolving them. (See Pet’rs' Pet. ¶ 38, Ex. C.) They also asked the Board to vacate its

dismissal before the April 1 hearing. (See Pet’rs’ Pet., Ex. C ¶¶ 16-18.) On March 29,

2024, before the Board ruled on the motion for partial continuance and before the

hearing was held, the Homeowners Associations initiated this appeal. (See Pet’rs’ Pet.

¶ 40.)

In this appeal, the Homeowners Associations seek to have the Court review their

assessment and taxation claims de novo under Subsection 5(g) of Indiana Code § 6-

1.1-15-5. They cite the Board’s failure to issue a final determination within the statutory

timeframe for rehearing under Subsection 5(a) of the same statute. (See Pet’rs’ Pet. ¶¶

5 4-13; Hr’g Tr. at 26-30.) The Assessor has countered with a motion to dismiss, arguing

that the Homeowners Associations have not satisfied the statutory requirements for a

petition for rehearing under Subsection 5(a) and must therefore exhaust all

administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. (See Resp’t Br. Supp. Mot.

Dismiss at 1-10.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a party opposes a request for de novo review under Subsection 5(g) of

Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5, arguing that the opposing party has not met the statutory

requirements and must exhaust all available administrative remedies, the defense is

properly raised through a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under

Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1). See GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 400 (Ind. 2001)

In deciding such a motion, the Court may consider the petition for judicial review, the

motion, and any supporting evidence, including affidavits. See id.; Joseph R. Guy, P.C.

v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 188 N.E.3d 74, 77 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2022). In addition,

the Court may establish procedures to uncover jurisdictional facts, weigh the evidence

to determine those facts, and resolve any related factual disputes. See GKN Co., 744

N.E.2d at 400; Guy, 188 N.E.3d at 77; Borgman v. State Farm. Ins. Co., 713 N.E.2d

851, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.

DISCUSSION

“Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the

general class to which any particular proceeding belongs.” K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d

538, 540 (Ind. 2006). “When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any action it takes

is void.” Perry v. Stitzer Buick GMC, Inc., 637 N.E.2d 1282, 1286 (Ind. 1994) (citation

6 omitted). The parties cannot, by consent or agreement, confer subject matter jurisdiction

on a court. Goldstein v. Indiana Dep’t of Loc. Gov’t Fin., 876 N.E.2d 391, 393 (Ind. Tax

Ct. 2007). Indiana courts derive their jurisdiction solely from the Indiana Constitution or

statute. See State v. Sproles, 672 N.E.2d 1353, 1356 (Ind. 1996).

“The [T]ax [C]ourt is a court of limited jurisdiction.” IND. CODE § 33-26-3-1 (2024).

The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction extends to original tax appeals and other matters

specifically assigned by statute. IND. CODE §§ 33-26-3-2, -3 (2024); State ex rel. Zoeller

v. Aisin USA Mfg., Inc., 946 N.E.2d 1148, 1152 (Ind. 2011). Original tax appeals are

cases that arise under Indiana’s tax laws and challenge a final determination of the

Indiana Board, the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, or the Indiana

Department of Revenue. See I.C. § 33-26-3-1; IND. CODE § 33-26-6-0.2 (2024); Aisin,

946 N.E.2d at 1152.

This case is not an original tax appeal as the Homeowner Associations do not

challenge a final determination of the Board. Instead, this case arises under another

grant of jurisdiction conferred on the Tax Court by statute. In particular, the Homeowner

Associations have pursued this appeal under Subsection 5(g) of Indiana Code § 6-1.1-

15-5. Appeals under this subsection are informally referred to as “direct appeals”

because the provision requires the Tax Court to consider such appeals de novo and

allows litigants to proceed to the Tax Court without first exhausting the administrative

process and obtaining a final determination from the Board, effectively bypassing the

latter stages of the Board’s appeal process. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-5(g) (2024);

accord Rolls-Royce Corp. v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 132 N.E.3d 522, 524-25 (Ind. Tax

Ct. 2019). Subsection 5(g) is narrowly drawn and permits litigants to skip the Board in

7 only two circumstances: (1) when the Board fails to issue a final determination within the

statutory time limits set by Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-4, or (2) when the Board fails to

issue a final determination within ninety days of granting a petition for rehearing. I.C.

§ 6-1.1-15-5(g).

In this appeal, the Homeowners Associations attempt to proceed under the

second prong of Subsection 5(g) relating to petitions for rehearing. They argue that their

Motion to Vacate the Board’s order dismissing the case for failure to appear at the

Board’s December 22, 2021, hearing was, in fact, a petition for rehearing. (See Pet’rs’

Resp. Opp’n Resp’t Mot. Dismiss (“Pet’rs’ Resp. Br.”) at 10-12; Hr’g Tr. at 26-30.) They

contend, therefore, that the Tax Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this direct

appeal under Subsection 5(g) because the Board took the Motion to Vacate under

advisement and set it for hearing but did not issue a final determination within ninety

days, thereby opening the door to a direct appeal. (See Pet’rs’ Resp. Br. at 5, 10-12.)

Determining whether the Motion to Vacate is a petition for rehearing or a motion

under the failure to appear process is critical. If the Motion to Vacate qualifies as a

petition for rehearing, it falls under Subsections 5(a) and 5(g) of Indiana Code § 6-1.1-

15-5, thereby granting the Court subject matter jurisdiction if the statutory ninety-day

requirement is satisfied. If it does not, judicial review must proceed under Subsection

5(b). Because the Court disagrees that the Motion to Vacate is a petition for rehearing

within the meaning of Subsection 5(a), the Court concludes that it does not have subject

matter jurisdiction over this appeal.

The Rehearing Process Is Distinct from the Failure to Appear Process

The Homeowners Associations’ Motion to Vacate invokes a process that is

8 entirely distinct from the rehearing process outlined in Subsection 5(a). These two

processes operate under separate Indiana Board rules, serve distinct purposes, and

adhere to different time limits.

The petition for rehearing process arises under Subsection 5(a) and the Board’s

corresponding rehearing rule, 52 Indiana Administrative Code 4-9-2. See I.C. § 6-1.1-

15-5(a); 52 IND. ADMIN. CODE 4-9-2 (2021). Under this framework, a party may submit a

written petition or motion that requests a rehearing within fifteen days of the Board’s

final determination. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(a); 52 I.A.C. 4-9-2(a)-(b). The Board then has

fifteen days to decide whether to grant the petition; otherwise, it is deemed denied. See

I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(a). If granted, the Board may either conduct additional hearings or

issue a decision based solely on the written record. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(a)(1). Once a

rehearing petition is granted, the Board must issue a new final determination within

ninety days and the subsequent determination becomes subject to judicial review. See

I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(a)(2); 52 I.A.C. 4-9-2(c). Unlike other procedural remedies, a petition

for rehearing does not allow for a party to raise new arguments or introduce new

evidence. See, e.g., New York Life Ins. Co. v. Henriksen, 421 N.E.2d 1117, 1118 (Ind.

Ct. App. 1981) (explaining that petitions for rehearing address issues and arguments

properly raised on appeal that were either disregarded or decided incorrectly). Instead,

parties are confined to the claims and evidence already presented in the proceeding

and may only challenge errors or omissions in the final determination. See id.

The rehearing process serves a corrective function, allowing the Board an

opportunity to rectify errors or omissions of law, fact, or remedy. See, e.g., Griffin v.

State, 763 N.E.2d 450, 450-51 (Ind. 2002) (“A petition for rehearing is a vehicle that

9 affords the reviewing court the opportunity to correct its own omissions or errors.”)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It ensures that errors in the Board’s final

determinations can be addressed within the administrative process and potentially

obviates the need for judicial review. Petitions for rehearing are not an opportunity to

relitigate decided issues or rehabilitate losing arguments. See, e.g., Prop. Dev. Co.

Four, LLC v. Grant Cnty. Assessor, 42 N.E.3d 182, 184 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (“[A] proper

petition should not ask the Court to re-examine all questions decided against the

petitioning litigant[.]”) (citations omitted).

By contrast, the failure to appear process is governed exclusively by the Board’s

failure to appear rule, which applies when a party does not attend a Board hearing. See

52 IND. ADMIN. CODE 4-9-4 (2021). Unlike the rehearing process, the failure to appear

process is not designed to correct an error in the Board’s reasoning. The fact that a

party failed to appear is known by the Board. Instead, the process is specifically

designed to allow a dismissed party the opportunity to justify its failure to appear,

introducing new arguments and new evidence to support that explanation. See 52 I.A.C.

4-9-4(b) (“Th[e] objection must contain supportive facts stating why the party did not

appear.”). It is designed to determine an issue for the first time (i.e., the consequence of

a party’s failure to appear), not to remediate a previously determined matter. The

opportunity to correct arises only after the Board makes an informed determination in

the first instance after considering the evidence and the explanation put forth by the

dismissed party.

The Board’s rule accomplishes this by reversing the typical sequence of

adjudication. The rule permits the Board to automatically dismiss a petitioner’s case or

10 default a respondent if neither the party nor its authorized representative appears at a

Board hearing. See 52 I.A.C. 4-9-4(a) (“If a party or authorized representative fails to

appear at a hearing, the board shall issue an order of default or dismissal.”) (emphasis

added). A dismissed or defaulted party may then seek relief by filing a “written objection

requesting that the order be vacated and set aside.” 52 I.A.C. 4-9-4(b). Unlike the

rehearing process, the petitioning party must request relief within ten, not fifteen, days

of the Board’s dismissal order. Compare 52 I.A.C. 4-9-2(b) with 52 I.A.C. 4-9-4(b). And,

also unlike the rehearing process, the rule does not set a deadline for the Board to rule

on the objection or automatically deem the objection denied if the Board fails to act

within a certain period of time. Compare I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(a) with 52 I.A.C. 4-9-4.

Ultimately, the Board may vacate the dismissal or default order if the dismissed party

demonstrates good cause for its failure to appear. See 52 I.A.C. 4-9-4(c). Once the

Board has made its decision, the parties may then seek to have the Board reconsider its

good cause determination using the rehearing process.

Here, the record confirms that the Homeowners Associations’ Motion to Vacate

was filed in response to the Board’s Dismissal Order. The motion was titled “Motion to

Vacate and Set Aside Notice of Dismissal” and offered a series of arguments with

supporting exhibits to justify the Homeowners Associations’ non-appearance. (Cert.

Admin. R. at 2185-2225.) At no point, either in the Motion to Vacate or the

accompanying briefing do the Homeowners Associations invoke or otherwise make

reference to the rehearing process under Subsection 5(a) or the Board’s rules. (See

Cert. Admin. R. at 2185-2225, 2236-41.) Instead, their arguments are limited to

11 explaining their failure to appear as required by the failure to appear rule.3 (See Cert.

Admin. R. at 2185-2225, 2236-41.) The only conclusion that the Court can draw from

this is that the Motion to Vacate was filed under the failure to appear rule and was not a

petition for rehearing under Subsection 5(a) or the Board’s rules. Consequently,

because the two processes are distinct, the ninety-day provision in Subsection 5(a)

never began to run, and the Board’s alleged inaction on the Motion to Vacate cannot

serve as a jurisdictional basis for a direct appeal under Subsection 5(g). The Court

therefore concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case on this basis.

The Law of the Case Doctrine Does Not Apply

The Homeowners Associations maintain that, because the Court treated their

Motion to Vacate as a petition for rehearing in Muir Woods III, the law of the case

doctrine precludes the Court from reaching a different conclusion in this appeal. (See

Pet’rs’ Resp. Br. at 10-14; Hr’g Tr. at 26-30.) The law of the case doctrine “is a

discretionary tool by which appellate courts [may] decline to revisit legal issues already

determined on appeal in the same case and on substantially the same facts.” Cutter v.

State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 405 (Ind. 2000) (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating

Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1988)). While this doctrine “promote[s] finality and judicial

economy[,]” it is not inflexible. See id. (citations omitted). The doctrine applies only to

3 The record further reveals that the Homeowners Associations acknowledged that their Motion to Vacate was not a petition for rehearing in their prior appeal. (See Pet’rs’ Reply Br. Supp. Pet. Jud. Rev. at 13, Muir Woods III, 225 N.E.3d 236 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2023) (Cause No. 22T-TA-00001) (“Petitioners did not seek/file a ‘rehearing’ of the [Dismissal Order] according to I.C. § 6-1.1-15-4 or 5, or 52 I.A.C. 4-9-2. Petitioners’ January 3, 2022[,] filed Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Notice of Dismissal was not a motion/petition for rehearing.”) (citation omitted).) And, fifteen days after filing their Motion to Vacate, the Homeowners Associations separately filed a petition for rehearing, titled “Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Summary Judgment,” seeking reconsideration of a separate order by the Board dismissing their request for partial summary judgment. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2245-46, 2276-84.) 12 issues directly decided in prior proceedings and does not bar consideration of distinct

issues in subsequent appeals. Id.; Citizens Action Coal. of Indiana, Inc. v. Pub. Serv.

Co. of Indiana, Inc., 582 N.E.2d 330, 334-35 (Ind. 1991). Courts retain the power to

revisit prior decisions in extraordinary circumstances, see State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d

899, 901 (Ind. 1994), including prior jurisdictional rulings, see Christianson, 486 U.S. at

817-18. The discretionary nature of this doctrine distinguishes it from res judicata, which

compels judgment, and ensures that it does not constrain a court’s authority to correct

errors. State v. Lewis, 543 N.E.2d 1116, 1118 (Ind. 1989). “[O]ne directs discretion, the

other supersedes it and compels judgment. In other words, in one it is a question of

power, in the other of submission.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting

Southern Ry. Co. v. Clift, 260 U.S. 316, 319 (1922).

The Homeowners Associations argue that the procedural path for this appeal

was set in Muir Woods III when the Court treated the Motion to Vacate as a petition for

rehearing under Subsection 5(a). At bottom, the Homeowners Associations’ argument

requires the Court to consider two questions: (1) whether the subject matter jurisdiction

question presented here was considered in Muir Woods III, and (2) whether the Court’s

subject matter jurisdiction under the direct appeal process constitutes an extraordinary

circumstance that renders the law of the case doctrine inapplicable. Answering these

questions requires examining the differences between the statutory bases for

jurisdiction in Muir Woods III and this case, as well as the fundamental nature of subject

matter jurisdiction as an extraordinary legal principle.

The Subject Matter Questions Presented in Muir Woods III and This Case are Different

Both this Court’s decision in Muir Woods III and this appeal concern questions of

13 subject matter jurisdiction under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5. However, the bases for the

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in each instance arise from two different subsections

of that statute, each conferring separate appeal rights. Muir Woods III involved

Subsection 5(b), which governs traditional tax appeals and applies when the Indiana

Board has issued a final determination. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(b); Muir Woods III, 225

N.E.3d at 242-43. This case, by contrast, involves Subsection 5(g), which creates a

narrowly tailored exception allowing litigants to bypass the administrative review

process when the Indiana Board fails to issue a final determination within the prescribed

statutory timeframe. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-4(f)-(h) (2024); I.C. 6-1.1-15-5(a), (g).

These provisions reflect fundamentally different approaches to judicial review, balancing

administrative deference under Subsection 5(b) with judicial oversight to address undue

delays under Subsection 5(g).

Because the Homeowners Associations sought judicial review under Subsection

5(b) in Muir Woods III, the threshold question there was whether the Homeowners

Associations had received a final determination. Muir Woods III, 225 N.E.3d at 242-44.

Here, because the Homeowners Associations have sought judicial review under

Subsection 5(g), the question for the Court is whether the Board failed to act on a

petition for rehearing within the time limits set forth in the statute. Thus, the subject

matter jurisdiction issue in Muir Woods III turned on the finality of a Board issued final

determination, while the subject matter jurisdiction issue in this case turns on the legal

consequences of the Board’s deferred action.

Of critical importance is the fact that resolution of jurisdiction in Muir Woods III

did not require the Court to determine whether the Homeowners Associations’ Motion to

14 Vacate was a petition for rehearing. In Muir Woods III, the Court merely proceeded on

the assumption that the Motion to Vacate was equivalent to a petition for rehearing

under Subsection 5(a). See id. at 243-44. But the distinction was not essential to its

subject matter jurisdiction analysis, as the Court ultimately concluded that the Board’s

decision to take the Motion under advisement and set the matter for hearing negated

the finality of the Board’s Dismissal Order. That conclusion would have remained the

same even if the Court had treated the Motion to Vacate as an objection under the

failure to appeal rule. The Board’s decision to hear the Motion to Vacate would have still

negated the finality of the Dismissal Order.

By comparison, in this appeal, determining whether the Homeowners

Associations’ Motion to Vacate satisfies the statutory requirements for a petition for

rehearing is indispensable to establishing subject matter jurisdiction. The Homeowners

Associations’ claim depends entirely on whether the Board failed to act on a valid

petition for rehearing within the statutory timeframe. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(g); (see also

Pet’rs’ Pet. ¶¶ 4-13.) If the Motion to Vacate is not a petition for rehearing under

Subsection 5(a), there is no basis for appeal under Subsection 5(g).

The law of the case doctrine binds subsequent proceedings only to issues

directly decided in prior appeals, not to distinct matters arising from new proceedings or

facts. See Citizens Action Coal. of Indiana, 582 N.E.2d at 334-35. The doctrine does not

apply to issues that were not conclusively decided in a prior appeal or were addressed

only in dicta. See Perkins v. Fillio, 155 N.E.3d 626, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans.

denied. Such principles ensure that legal rulings remain anchored in facts and issues

actually decided and prevent future proceedings from being burdened by ancillary

15 statements. Here, the jurisdictional question falls under a different statutory grant of

authority, and determining whether the Motion to Vacate qualifies as a petition for

rehearing is essential to establishing jurisdiction. For these reasons, the law of the case

doctrine does not apply in this case.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Direct Appeal Process Is an Extraordinary Circumstance

Nonetheless, even if Muir Woods III had squarely determined that the Motion to

Vacate was a petition for rehearing, the subject matter jurisdiction question in this case

presents an extraordinary circumstance warranting departure from that prior holding.

Subject matter jurisdiction is the cornerstone of judicial authority. Without it, courts

cannot act, and any decisions rendered are void. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. Ispat

Inland, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 477, 481 (Ind. 2003). Unlike procedural errors, defects in

subject matter jurisdiction strike at the heart of the judicial process, rendering judgments

unenforceable and undermining public confidence. See K.S., 849 N.E.2d at 541-42

(explaining that claims of procedural error do not implicate subject matter jurisdiction

questions).

Because subject matter jurisdiction goes to the very core of a court’s authority,

the law of the case doctrine’s primary purpose, promoting judicial economy, must yield

to the imperative of accuracy. See Huffman, 643 N.E.2d at 901. It is for that reason that

courts have routinely recognized questions of subject matter jurisdiction as an

extraordinary circumstance, justifying departure from the law of the case doctrine. See

Christianson, 486 U.S. at 817-18 (recognizing that clearly erroneous jurisdictional

rulings justify revising prior decisions); Stewart v. Kingsley Terrace Church of Christ,

Inc., 767 N.E.2d 542, 545-46 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that subject matter

16 jurisdiction “is certainly extraordinary enough to warrant” a court setting aside the law of

the case); Lewis v. Connecticut Gaming Pol’y Bd., 620 A.2d 780, 782-83 (Conn. 1993)

(explaining that the doctrine does not preclude a judge from revisiting the issue of the

court’s subject matter jurisdiction); Entergy Corp. v. Jenkins, 469 S.W.3d 330, 336-38

(Tex. App. 2015) (holding “that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by a prior

decision in [a] case” as appellate courts must ensure subject matter jurisdiction exists

regardless of whether the parties challenge it), review denied. Revisiting prior decisions

in these circumstances is not only warranted but necessary to prevent void or

unenforceable judgments.

The statutory framework for direct appeals under Subsection 5(g) reflects the

Legislature’s recognition that traditional administrative review processes may not always

function as intended. License to bypass administrative review places an even greater

duty on the Court to confirm its jurisdiction. The administrative exhaustion doctrine

“require[s] courts to honor the legislature’s decision to vest authority in specialized

agencies by deferring to those agencies in all matters the legislature has placed within

their expertise.” Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. City of Noblesville, 234 N.E.3d 173, 179

(Ind. 2024). “Until the party exhausts all such remedies, courts [typically] cannot hear

the case at all.” Id. at 180 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Given this

heightened duty, the Court cannot simply rely on the law of the case doctrine when its

authority to hear the appeal remains in doubt. Courts have an independent duty to

examine whether they possess subject matter jurisdiction, even when the parties fail to

raise that concern. See Kindred v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 149 N.E.3d 304, 308

(Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. Instead, the Court must confirm its authority and

17 give due deference to the jurisdictional limits set by the Legislature. Therefore, even if

Muir Woods III had held that the Motion to Vacate was a petition for rehearing, the

foundational nature of subject matter jurisdiction would warrant departing from the law

of the case doctrine in this instance.

CONCLUSION

Because the Homeowners Associations filed a Motion to Vacate instead of a

petition for rehearing, they activated the failure to appear process rather than the

rehearing process. Consequently, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over this appeal under Subsection 5(g) of Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Assessor’s motion to dismiss. Therefore, the Court

DISMISSES and REMANDS this case to the Indiana Board for further proceedings

consistent with this decision. The parties shall bear their own costs.

SO ORDERED: 2/18/2025 Justin L. McAdam Judge, Indiana Tax Court

Distribution: James K. Gilday, Jessica R. Gastineau, Indiana Board of Tax Review