Switzerland County Assessor v. Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC , 130 N.E.3d 672 ( 2019 )

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
JEFFREY T. BENNETT DAVID A. SUESS
BRADLEY D. HASLER BRENT A. AUBERRY
BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP BENJAMIN A. BLAIR
Indianapolis, IN STEPHEN H. PAUL
BRIAN J. PAUL
FAEGRE BAKER & DANIELS LLP
Indianapolis, IN
FILED
IN THE Aug 15 2019, 1:56 pm
INDIANA TAX COURT CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
)
SWITZERLAND COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Cause No. 49T10-1705-TA-00009
)
BELTERRA RESORT INDIANA, LLC, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF DECISION AND
FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
FOR PUBLICATION
August 15, 2019
WENTWORTH, J.
This matter is before the Court on Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC’s “Motion for
Enforcement of Decision and For Order to Show Cause.” The Court, being duly
advised in the premises, grants Belterra’s Motion.
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2018, this Court issued an opinion that affirmed in part and
reversed in part the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review valuing
Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC’s real property for purposes of the 2009 through 2014
assessments. See Switzerland Cty. Assessor v. Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC, 101
N.E.3d 895 (Ind. Tax Ct.), review denied. The Court provided instructions in its
opinion for recomputing Belterra’s assessments and remanded the matter to the
Indiana Board. Id. at 909. See also Switzerland Cty. Assessor v. Belterra Resort
Indiana, LLC, No. 49T10-1705-TA-00009 (Ind. Tax Ct. Jan. 25, 2019) (order granting
Assessor’s Motion for Clarification of Remand Status). On March 7, 2019, the
Indiana Board issued an “Order on Remand” instructing the Assessor to enter
assessments that complied with the Court’s instructions. (See Resp’t Mot. Enf’t
Decision & Order Show Cause (“Belterra’s Mot.”), Ex. 3 at 2 ¶ 7.) In doing so,
however, the Indiana Board stated its belief that it was only required to order an
assessment, not to actually oversee the recomputation process. (See Belterra’s
Mot., Ex. 3 at 2 ¶ 7.)
When, by June 7, 2019, no assessments had yet been entered, Belterra, by
counsel, filed its Motion asking the Court to enforce its May 24, 2018, decision by
issuing an order to show cause why its decision had not been executed. On June
17, 2019, the Switzerland County Assessor, by counsel, responded by asserting that
the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the Motion. (See Pet’r Br.
Resp. Mot. Enforcement Decision & Order Show Cause (“Assessor’s Br.”) at 4-9.)
2
On July 9, 2019, after the Motion had been fully briefed and was pending
before the Court, the Assessor filed a “Motion for Leave to File Surreply to [Belterra’s
Motion]” claiming that on July 3, 2019, final assessed values had been assigned to
Belterra’s property and the process for issuing refunds to Belterra had already been
consummated. (See Pet’r Mot. Leave File Surreply Mot. Enf’t Decision & Order
Show Cause (“Assessor’s Surreply”) at 2 ¶ 3.) As a result, the Assessor argued,
“any disagreement Belterra has with the refund amount must [now] be resolved by a
court of competent jurisdiction located in Switzerland County[.]” (Assessor’s
Surreply at 2 ¶ 4.)
LAW
This Court exercises exclusive jurisdiction over cases that arise under
Indiana’s tax laws and are initial appeals of final determinations of the Indiana
Board. IND. CODE § 33-26-3-1 (2019). If, in the course of exercising its jurisdiction,
the Court determines that an Indiana Board final determination cannot be affirmed, it
must remand the matter to the Indiana Board with instructions. IND. CODE § 6-1.1-
15-8(a) (2018). Pursuant to those instructions, the Indiana Board may conduct
further proceedings and correct the assessment itself or refer the matter to the
county property tax assessment board of appeals to make another assessment. I.C.
§ 6-1.1-15-8(a); IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-9(a) (2018). Either way, the corrected
assessment is subject to appeal. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-9 (providing that if the Indiana
Board corrects the assessment, the taxpayer or the assessor has the right to appeal
from the Indiana Board’s “final determination” to the Tax Court). See also IND. CODE
§§ 6-1.1-15-1.2, -2.5, -3 (2018) (indicating that the “final determinations” of county
3
property tax assessment boards of appeals are reviewed by the Indiana Board,
whose final determinations are then reviewed by the Tax Court). The right to appeal
a corrected assessment is triggered upon proper notice. See, e.g., I.C. §§ 6-1.1-15-
1.2(j), -3(b), (d); IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-5-(b), (c) (2018).
ANALYSIS
Belterra’s Motion requests that the Court enforce its May 24, 2018, decision
by ordering compliance with the instructions in its decision. (See Belterra’s Mot. at
1, 6.) The Assessor has argued in opposition that 1) the Indiana Board’s Order on
Remand was the “final disposition” of Belterra’s case and Belterra was therefore
appealing a claim for refund both prematurely and in the wrong court; 2) if the
Indiana Board’s Order on Remand was not a final disposition, Belterra’s remedy was
with the Indiana Board, not the Tax Court; or 3) the Court’s jurisdiction was never
invoked because the Indiana Board’s Order on Remand did not use the words “refer”
or “referral” specifically used under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-8. (See Assessor’s Br.
at 4-9.)
1.
The Assessor first argues that the Indiana Board’s Order on Remand or the
purported assignment of final assessed values was the final disposition of the case,
thereby converting the matter to a claim for refund that is properly resolved by a
court of general jurisdiction in Switzerland County. (Assessor’s Br. at 4-6;
Assessor’s Surreply at 2 ¶ 4.) The Assessor, however, did not present any evidence
that either was a final disposition and Belterra was not provided notice that included
its appeal rights – a necessary component of a final disposition. (Compare
4
Assessor’s Surreply, Exs. A, B and Belterra’s Mot., Ex. 3 with I.C. §§ 6-1.1-15-1.2(j),
-3(b), (d); I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5-(b), (c) and Resp’t Reply [Assessor’s Surreply] at 3
(where Belterra asserts it never received any notice of appeal rights).) Accordingly,
this matter is still in the Court-ordered remand phase and has not reached the point
of final disposition. This Court – like every other court in this State – retains
jurisdiction over its cases until their final disposition (which includes the enforcement
of its own orders, judgments, and decrees). See, e.g., Fackler v. Powell, 839 N.E.2d
165, 167 (Ind. 2005); Skendzel v. Marshall, 330 N.E.2d 747, 749 (Ind. 1975); Lake-
O’-The Woods Club v. Martinal, 154 N.E.2d 498, 500 (Ind. 1958); Town of St. John
v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 729 N.E.2d 242, 245 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000). The Court
therefore rejects the Assessor’s claim that it lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to
rule on Belterra’s Motion on this basis.
2.
Second, the Assessor claims that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
even if the Indiana Board did not issue a final disposition because the Judgment
Entry issued concurrently with the Court’s May 24, 2018, decision makes it clear that
jurisdiction lies with the Indiana Board on remand, not the Tax Court. (Assessor’s
Br. at 6-7.) The Court rejects this claim as well. See, e.g., Skendzel, 330 N.E.2d at
749 (stating that “[w]hen an appellate court remands a cause to the trial court with
instructions for further proceedings, the appellate court retains jurisdiction to see that
its instructions are carried out”).
5
3.
Finally, the Assessor states that the Court’s jurisdiction was never properly
invoked because the Indiana Board’s Order on Remand did not “refer” the matter, or
make a “referral,” to the county property tax assessment board of appeals as
required by Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-8(a). (Assessor’s Br. at 7-9.) The Assessor
asserts that the Indiana Board’s failure to use the words “refer” or “referral” removes
the grounds for the Court to police compliance with the Indiana Board’s Order on
Remand under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-8(c). (Assessor’s Br. at 8-9.) The
Assessor’s arguments are hollow, however, because “[c]ourts inherently possess the
power to enforce their orders and decrees, and such authority is not dependent upon
statutory enactments authorizing the same.” Lake-O’-The Woods Club, 154 N.E.2d
at 500.
“Upon remand, the Indiana [B]oard may take action only on those issues
specified in the decision of the [T]ax [C]ourt.” I.C. § 6-1.1-15-8(a). Accordingly, it
was not sufficient for the Indiana Board to simply order the Assessor to prepare a
compliant assessment in this case. Indeed, the Indiana Board must ensure that the
Court’s instructions contained in its May 24, 2018, opinion have been specifically
carried out. This oversight process guarantees that the Indiana Board – Indiana’s
assessment and property tax expert – has determined the accuracy of a corrected
assessment, reducing the possibility that additional judicial resources must be
expended. Moreover, as a practical matter, the Indiana Board’s oversight insulates
6
an assessor – typically a party in property assessment cases – from the appearance
that she advanced her own self-interest.1
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court rejects the Assessor’s claims that the
actions that have occurred on remand in this matter have divested this Court of its
subject matter jurisdiction to both clarify and enforce its May 24, 2018, judgment and
GRANTS Belterra’s Motion. Moreover, the Court ORDERS the Indiana Board to
verify and provide written notice to the parties in this case that the corrected
assessments comply with the Court’s instructions for correcting the assessments in
its May 24, 2018, decision. Those instructions explicitly stated:
Belterra’s 2009 Assessment
1) Start with the 2008 assessed value of the entire property;
2) Remove from that value the portion attributable to the Riverboat
and replace it with $4,327,000 (i.e., Herman’s appraised value).
Belterra’s 2014 Assessment
1) Start with the 2008 assessed value of the entire property;
2) Remove from that value the portion attributable to the Riverboat
and replace it with $3,500,000 (i.e., Herman’s appraised value);
1
Here, the Assessor’s post-decision actions and claims appear to be intended to reduce the
adverse effects of the Court’s decision. First, the Assessor conjured an ambiguity in the
Court’s instructions for calculating the corrected assessments where there was none. Then,
when corrected values were issued presumably based on that conjured ambiguity, the
Assessor invented procedural infirmities to prevent the Court from enforcing its decision.
Taxpayers deserve more than taxation by trickery, and the Court will not countenance such
actions.
7
3) Also, remove from the 2008 assessed value of the entire property the
portion attributable to the Golf Course and replace it with $3,000,000
(i.e., Herman’s appraised value).
Switzerland Cty. Assessor, 101 N.E.3d at 909.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of August 2019.
Martha Blood Wentworth, Judge
Indiana Tax Court
Distribution:
David A. Suess, Brent A. Auberry, Benjamin A. Blair, Stephen H. Paul, Brian J. Paul,
Jeffrey T. Bennett, Bradley D. Hasler, the Indiana Board of Tax Review
8