Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Resident Derek Gress contests $500K+ assessment, alleges notice mailed to wrong address; hearing set
Loading...
Summary
Derek Gress told the Daviess County appeals board he did not receive a Form 11 notice because it was mailed to a previous address and described a large swing in assessed value; the board scheduled a formal appeal hearing for June 9 and asked staff and field inspectors to reconcile square footage and grading differences before then.
Derek Gress, a Washington, Indiana, resident, told the Daviess County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals on April 28 that he did not receive a Form 11 notification of a property assessment change because the county mailed the form to a prior address. He said he learned of the assessment only after a county treasurer's staff member alerted him and described an assessment sequence that briefly reached about $1,000,000 before later adjustments to roughly $526,100.
"I did not physically receive a form 11... it does say Janette Court. It was sent to 1523 Janette Court," Gress said under oath, presenting printouts of tax bills and warranty deeds he said show multiple mailing addresses on file. He asked the board for relief and the opportunity to present evidence that square footage, grading and neighborhood factors had been applied incorrectly.
County field inspector Murray testified he had visited the house multiple times and measured the structure but said he lacked floor plans that would conclusively document upstairs and attic square footage. Murray offered to remeasure and provide corrected drawings; the assessor's office confirmed they had adjusted the assessment downward in stages after reinspection and would continue to work with the taxpayer to reconcile drawings and measurements.
County counsel advised the board that statutes require sending Form 11 to the best address on file but do not require proof of actual receipt by the taxpayer; as a result, counsel said the statutory presumption that assessments are correct remains and the taxpayer bears the burden to show market value in use. Counsel also noted that objective clerical errors (for example, mailing to the wrong address on county records) can create a different procedural rule for deadlines but that homestead filings and some relief options are governed by state procedures and IBTR rules.
After discussion the board agreed that the matter warranted a formal appeal hearing rather than resolving the issue during public comment. The board asked Gress and assessor staff to exchange corrected floor plans and measurement details in advance and scheduled a formal hearing for June 9 at 1:00 p.m.
Next steps the board recorded included: assessor field staff remeasuring the property and producing corrected drawings, the assessor or clerk notifying the parties of the formal hearing date and documentation requirements, and the taxpayer filing any formal appeal forms required under county and state procedures. The board emphasized that statutory deadlines and state review processes (IBTR) could affect final relief.
