Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elkhart County board grants 20 days for mortgage clarification in contested assessment appeal
Summary
At a Feb. 24, 2026 hearing the Elkhart County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals heard testimony on a taxpayer appeal of a 2025 residential assessment and voted to give the petitioner 20 days to clarify mortgage and sales-data evidence before the board renders a final decision.
The Elkhart County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals on Feb. 24, 2026 heard testimony in a taxpayer appeal over the 2025 assessed value of a residential parcel and voted to give the petitioner 20 days to provide clarification on a mortgage document and supporting sales-data calculations.
Dylan Miller, the county’s representative, told the board that the original 2023 Form 11 assessment of $297,500 had been corrected to $278,400 on a Form 113 and that a 7% "abnormal obsolescence" adjustment on the property record card was carried forward from a 2024 appeal, not attributed to nearby power lines. "That is actually a result of the 2024 appeal being carried forward into '25," Miller said, explaining that the adjustment was an isolated market adjustment for the subject property rather than a neighborhood-wide change.
The petitioner, identified in the record as Mr. Blodgett, said he purchased the home in 2023 for $267,500 and objected to the assessment’s increase and its potential effect on future tax years. "My biggest concern is not that you were off by $4,000 in value. It's that next year… we're just gonna jump right back up to 300," Blodgett said, summarizing why he appealed the earlier $297,500 figure.
County staff presented exhibits including MLS listing photos, sales grids and a multiple-regression model. Miller noted limitations in the county’s model—particularly that one comparable had substantially less river frontage and that the assessor had not conducted an interior tour for some comparables—while urging the board to weigh the evidence.
Petitioner representative Beth said she had only just seen a mortgage document provided by the county that morning and asked for additional time to determine whether the mortgage included nonreal-estate assets that would make it an unreliable indicator of property value. Beth told the board she would try to document which assets the mortgage covered and to provide supporting sales-data and neighborhood-factor analysis.
The board voted to grant the petitioner 20 days to provide the requested clarifications and supporting documentation. The board also instructed parties to provide any quantification supporting adjustments in the multiple-regression analysis if available, while acknowledging the county might not be able to produce a full working file.
The hearing was adjourned after the exchange; the board will consider the newly submitted evidence within the continuance period before issuing a final determination on the appeal.
