Opinion ID: 852846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Curative Legislation

Text: First, although the Legislature certainly has the authority to enact curative legislation, there is nothing in the text of the statute to suggest the Legislature intended section 35 to serve that function. By specifically declaring that section 35 applied to a county other than a county subject to section 32 [Lake County] it is clear section 35 was intended as an exception to section 32 not a cure of any perceived constitutional infirmity. Second, to say that the DLGF was thus authorized by the 2004 legislation to do substantially the same things in Lake County that were in fact done under the color of section 32, Op. at 1252, is simply not supported by the language of the statute. Section 32 as it existed in 2002 specifically dictated that Lake County assessors may not appraise property, or have property appraised.... The only duty of the local assessors was to provide [the DLGF] or [the DLGF's] contractor ... any support and information requested by the [DLGF] or the contractor. Id. By contrast, under the 2004 legislation there is no absolute prohibition placed on local assessors from conducting reassessments. Rather, the DLGF may order a state conducted reassessment in the county if it determines a reassessment is necessary. I.C. § 6-1.1-4-35(e). Even then, provided the local assessors act before the DLGF orders a state conducted reassessment, the local assessors may enter into a contract with a professional appraising firm to conduct a reassessment.... I.C. § 6-1.1-4-35(i). And that contract is as valid as if it had been entered into by the [DLGF]; and [ ] shall be treated as the contract of the [DLGF]. Id. In essence, the newly enacted statute, which supposedly applies statewide, essentially gives local assessors an opt-out provision. Nothing resembling such a provision exists in the Lake County-only statute. Thus, while it is true the DLGF may order a statewide reassessment under section 35, it does not have carte blanche authority to conduct the reassessment itself or to hire contractors for that purpose. Rather, unlike section 32, under section 35 local Assessors still play a significant role in the assessment of local property. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, section 35 certainly has not cured the constitutionally defective I.C. § 6-1.1-8.5-1 et seq. This statute, which has undergone no substantial revision since its enactment, provides special rules for the assessment of the Big Four. And the assessments conducted under this statute apparently have been the greatest contributor to the significant tax increases for homeowners in Lake County. A DLGF ordered reassessment of property today could not include this Lake County-only provision. In sum, the doctrine of curative legislation saves neither I.C. § 6-1.1-4-32 nor I.C. § 6-1.1-8.5-1 et seq.