Opinion ID: 852846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Injunctive Relief is Improper

Text: Although we find the statutes authorizing these assessments to violate Section 22, we are given no basis to conclude that a different result would be produced by a reassessment by local authorities. The trial court found, presumably correctly, that the effect of the reassessment is to increase taxes on some properties compared to the taxes on the same property for prior years. But there is no finding that the reassessment done pursuant to these statutes produced a different result from the assessments that will ultimately prevail if the tax bills are enjoined. Indeed, if the local authorities do their jobs properly, and the reassessment was done properly, there is no basis to conclude they would reach a different result for any specific piece of property. Of course, one can conjecture that there might be differences, but there is no basis to conclude what those differences would be, at least without imputing improper motives to the local authorities. As the State points out, the provisions governing the values to be placed on property are applicable statewide. The only effect of the statutes the plaintiffs attack is to change the agency that performs the assessment, not the substance of what the assessor is to do. Indeed, we have no basis to conclude that the assessed valuations produced by the DLGF or the private firm are any different from what would have been produced by a timely assessment if the local authorities had been able to produce one, or would be produced by a reassessment in the future. As a matter of basic equity law, and the law of preliminary injunctions, courts must consider the relative benefits and burdens of granting injunctive relief, even if the plaintiffs are correct. See Ind. Family & Soc. Servs. Admin. v. Walgreen Co., 769 N.E.2d 158, 161 (Ind.2002). A court, considering an application for preliminary injunction will consider the traditional balance of convenience; this is to say, it will consider whether a greater injury would be done by granting the injunction than would result from a refusal to do so. 43A C.J.S. Balancing Equities, Inconvenience, Hardship, or Injury-Temporary or Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order § 82, 102 (2004). Equity courts are traditionally free to balance equities and hardships in determining whether or not to grant an equitable remedy. Dan D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies, § 2.4(1), at 91 (2d ed.1993). Moreover, injunctive relief is equitable in nature, and courts will not exercise that authority to produce useless results. State ex rel Board of Sanitary Commissioners of Terre Haute v. Superior Court of Vigo Cty., 247 Ind. 617, 220 N.E.2d 336 (Ind.1966). Given that the new law, which became effective June 30, 2004, would permit the DLGF to redo the entire reassessment and arrive at the same place, injunctive relief must be denied on that ground alone. The jurisdiction of a court of equity extends no farther than is necessary to do some equitable thing; it has no jurisdiction to do useless, unjust, and inequitable things. In re Hawkins Mortgage Co., 45 F.2d 937, 940 (7th Cir.1931). It is an age old axiom that equity will not do a useless thing. Townsend v. Quern, 473 F.Supp. 193, 198 (N.D.Ill.1979). An injunction is to be denied if the public interest would be substantially adversely affected, even if the plaintiff has a claim. Fumo v. Medical Group of Mich. City, Inc., 590 N.E.2d 1103, 1108 (Ind.Ct.App.1992).