Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2006-02792-R-1 Hicks

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds no change in the assessment of the
property as established by the Washington County Board of Review
is warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 1,330
IMPR.: $ 28,795
TOTAL: $ 30,125
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/smw/06-02792/10-08
1 of 7
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Tim C. & Donna S. Hicks
DOCKET NO.: 06-02792.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 05-19-10-253-002
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Tim C. and Donna S. Hicks, the appellants; and the Washington County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of 2,128 square foot Fleetwood double-wide mobile home that was built in 2002. The subject also has a two-car detached garage and a 10 foot by 12 foot wooden deck. The property is located in Radom, DuBois Township, Washington County.
The appellant, Donna S. Hicks, appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board contesting the assessment on the mobile home. The appellant contends the mobile home should not be classified and assessed as real estate due to its lack of a permanent foundation. The appellant testified the home was purchased from a mobile home dealer in Mt. Vernon. The appellant submitted a copy of the purchase agreement disclosing the subject home was a Fleetwood model that was purchased in July 2001 for a price of $66,126. The appellant also submitted a copy of Certificate of Title of Vehicle describing the subject as a 2002 Fleetwood with 2,128 square feet that was purchased on July 9, 2001. The appellant also submitted a copy of a document entitled Appraiser's Manufactured Housing Checklist dated April 1, 2005, indicating the home is not permanently affixed on a concrete/masonry perimeter with concrete/masonry footings and further indicating the home is not permanently affixed to blocks. The form also indicated, however, that the subject had been converted to real property.
The appellant testified the mobile home is on blocks but not permanently attached to the blocks and can be removed off of the blocks. She testified that when the mobile was purchased they had problems obtaining a loan because they were told that loans were not made for mobile homes. She also testified that she could not obtain insurance from State Farm Insurance because it does not insure mobile homes. Her main complaint was that her