Tax Court upholds 26 percent increase in home valuation

The Indiana Tax Court has upheld a 26 percent increase in a home valuation after finding that the homeowners failed to properly rebut the removal of an obsolescence adjustment.

After the assessed value of their home increased by 26 percent to $187,700 in just one year, Vassil Marinov and Venetka Marinova appealed to the Indiana Board of Tax Review, arguing the assessed value was too high. At a hearing, the Tippecanoe County assessor presented an estimate value using a sales comparison approach and a time trend analysis to show that the original 2014 assessed value of $149,000 actually undervalued the property.

Specifically, the assessor argued the higher assessed value of the Marinovs’ home was within the range of the market sales in their subdivision and was in fact, slightly lower. The assessor had removed a 24 percent obsolescence adjustment applied to the property in 2007 that had reduced its value and determined that his 2014 assessed value of $187,700 brought their home in line with the other properties in the neighborhood.

However, the Marinovs claimed other property assessments in the neighborhood had only increased by 0 to 2 percent between 2013 and 2014, while theirs increased by 26 percent. The Indiana Board ultimately upheld the assessor’s value, finding a prima facie case had been established that the assessment was correct. It concluded the Marinovs failed to rebut the assessor’s evidence. 

The Marinovs appealed, but the Indiana Tax Court found their arguments to be unpersuasive in Vassil Marinov & Venetka Marinova v. Tippecanoe County Assessor, 17T-TA-23.

“The evidence in the record demonstrates that a significant amount of the increase in the subject property’s 2014 assessed value is attributable to the removal of the obsolescence adjustment first applied to the property in 2007,” Judge Martha Blood Wentworth wrote. “… The Marinovs did not properly rebut the Assessor’s removal of the obsolescence adjustment because they failed to both identify causes of the purported obsolescence and to quantify the amount of obsolescence they claim should be applied.”

The tax court further noted that rather than offering evidence identifying defects and quantifying the amount of obsolescence to be applied to their home, the Marinovs simply stated that when they purchased the property in 2004, it had some “serious defects” that would cost “about $70,000” to fix.

“Without more, these statements are too remote in time and conclusory in nature to be probative,” Wentworth continued, referencing Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 470 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). “Therefore, based on the market-based evidence above, the Assessor properly removed the obsolescence adjustment to reflect the subject property’s market-value-in use.”