« Ind. Courts - Appellate Clerk's Office now authorized to serve orders, notices and opinions via e-mail | Main | Ind. Courts - "Judge denies Star motion to unseal search warrants in Durham case" »

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Ind. Decisions - One today from Tax Court

E.L. & B.L. Holsapple v. Monroe County Assessor is a 5-page opinion. The Holsapples appeared pro se. Judge Fisher writes:

The Assessor seeks to have the Holsapples’ appeal dismissed because it was not timely filed pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5. * * * The Assessor maintains that because the Petition was not filed until July 3, 2009, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Assessor is correct. * * *

The Holsapples maintain, however, that their petition should be deemed timely filed. More specifically, they explain that on June 22, 2009, they mailed their handwritten petition to the Clerk for filing. Nevertheless, on June 24, 2009, the Clerk returned the documents "for reformatting." The Holsapples state that they "reformatted their documents and resubmitted them to the Clerkon July 3, 2009, along with a filing fee of $120." Consequently, maintain the Holsapples, "the Court should recognize their initial submission date of June 22, 2009 and consider the reformatted petition to be an amendment to that filing."[4] * * *

Even assuming the Holsapples’ reformatted petition relates back to June 22, the Court still lacks jurisdiction to hear their appeal. Indeed, copies of their petition were not served upon (i.e., mailed to) the Assessor and the Attorney General, nor was notice of intent to appeal filed with the Indiana Board, until July 6, 2009 – well beyond the 48-day time period mandated by Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5 and Indiana Trial Rule 6. * * *

For the foregoing reasons, the Assessor’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
________
[4] The Holsapples state that they "believed that the June 24 letter from the Clerk permitted them a reasonable extension to merely reformat their petition and make the technical changes required." The Holsapples go on to say that while they "should have requested in their reformatted petition of July 3 that the Clerk back-date the filing to June 22, [because they were representing themselves] pro se" they did not consider doing so at that time.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 5, 2010 02:54 PM
Posted to Ind. Tax Ct. Decisions