Marshall County hears multiple property tax appeals; assessor’s office says valuations will be held

On Oct. 9, 2025, the Marshall County Board of Review held administrative hearings on a series of property tax assessment appeals involving parcels in Culver and Plymouth. County assessor representatives presented sales-comparison data and, in each matter recorded in the transcript, stated the county would "hold" the January 1, 2025 assessed value; several petitioners did not appear.

The hearings are conducted under Indiana Code IC 6-1.1, the statute the board cited at the start of the session. The matters heard affect individual property owners and their assessed values for tax year 2025; any change to an assessed value can affect property tax bills and mortgage escrow amounts.

For each appeal the transcript records the parcel identifier, the petitioner when named, the county representative's explanation and the county's stated assessment position. The board opened each appeal, asked whether the petitioner was present and — when petitioners were absent or did not follow up — proceeded with the county's testimony. Bill Ohlinger and Phil Olinger (board members) and Angie Snyder (board member) presided; Edward (Ed) Leary, Peter Paul and a staff member identified as Larry spoke for the county assessor's office.

Key appeals and county statements recorded in the transcript:

- 607 School Street, Culver (appeal 50014250500010; parcel 502117402127000014): County staff said the property was purchased in 2024 and that comparable sales in the area supported a higher value; the county representative concluded, "the county will hold the value in 01/01/2025 at $252,400." The transcript shows the petitioner was not present to dispute the county's comparables, and the hearing was concluded after county testimony.

- (Petitioner Gregory) Vandenboom — parcel (appeal 50014250500010 referenced later): A county witness stated they contacted Gregory Vandenboom and sent comparables by email; "his home hovered around almost there. It was a total value of $245,400 for 01/01/2025," the county said on the record. The petitioner did not provide further documentation and the hearing proceeded in his absence.

- Two Plymouth vacant parcels (appeals 50019250500014 and 50019250500015; parcels 503206302275000019 and 503206302176006019) filed by Shelley Hakkevich of Hack Properties: County staff explained the parcels previously received a developer's discount while owned by the original subdivision developer; when the parcels transferred in June 2024 the assessor's office removed the developer discount because the county did not find evidence the subsequent owner was the original developer. The county stated it would keep the current valuations and said the comparables offered by the petitioner were not appropriate for these lots.

- 9657 Sunnyside Drive, Plymouth (appeal 50018250500012; parcel 503203000097000018): Attorney Dan Allen Sherwood represented the petitioner. County staff described recent sales used in the comp analysis and explained how market increases drive valuations. In the county's testimony they referenced a current figure near $272,766 when explaining the neighborhood's market trend and how that informed the property valuation.

- 215 N. Slate Street, Culver (appeal 50014250500016; parcel 502117404077000014): County staff said petitioner Mary Ellen Smentana bought the property in 2021 for about $300,000 and that the assessor's office had a 01/01/2025 assessed value of $244,300; the county explained the sale was driving the market and the county held the assessed value for 2025. The petitioner did not appear.

- 11403 Shady Lane Drive, Plymouth (appeal 50018250500020; parcel 503215000024000018): County staff reported the Esper family purchased the home in 2021 for $480,000 and that the assessed value as of Jan. 1, 2025 was $541,700. The transcript records no further submission from the petitioners and the county's value was recorded as the county's position.

Across the hearings county staff repeatedly urged taxpayers to check potential deductions or exemptions with the auditor's office; on one appeal a county representative advised a petitioner, "Before you leave here today, it's not a bad idea... give me your address on that and see if there's anything you can qualify for that you're not currently getting." The transcript shows staff explained programs such as the over-65 and disability deductions and noted periodic legislative changes can alter eligibility.

The transcript does not record a formal board decision or vote on any appeal during the portions provided; in multiple matters the board stated it would "proceed with this hearing in the absence of the petitioner" and then concluded the proceedings after county testimony. The record therefore reflects county evidence and the board's administrative processing of the appeals but does not contain a documented final ruling by the board in the sampled excerpts.

The hearings may affect individual taxpayers' bills but do not, from the transcript alone, set precedent beyond each parcel. Parties seeking a final decision should consult the Marshall County auditor's or assessor's office for the board's written orders or the next steps for appeals under IC 6-1.1.