Lowball Watch – Indiana. Plus a Lesson on How to Try a Case

I was looking into Indiana’s property market the other because I heard that it’s in a good position at the moment. It’s looking strong so if you’re wanting to sell a property quickly for money then I would definitely start looking for companies that buy houses in Indiana soon. However, while I was looking into the market, I can across a very interesting court case based in the state. As you know, I’m fascinated by these types of cases so looked into the details. State of Indiana v. Murphy, No. 45A03-1106-PL-261, March 30, 2012. The basic facts regarding recovery were as follows: valuation by Appraisers (Commissioners) – $23,000. Jury verdict – $332,172.

The bone of contention was the fact that the owner paid only $3900 for the subject property in 2003 at a tax sale, and the state wanted to get that fact into evidence. This was problematic because that sale was remote in time and, being a tax sale, it was probably not a voluntary, open market, arm’s length transaction likely to shed light on fair market value. But it looks like we’ll never know in this case. At the beginning of trial the owner made a successful motion in limine to exclude the state’s evidence of that sale. But the state did not make an offer of proof or object further at trial; it only raised the exclusion as an asserted error when it got to the appellate court. With the aid of an appellate law firm, they were able to shine a light on this error in relation to the sale.

The court held that in order to preserve a record on appeal, an objection or an offer of proof must be made in the course of trial. This the state failed to do, and thereby waived the point. A trial court’s earlier ruling on a motion in limine, before the objectionable evidence is actually sought to be introduced into evidence is not sufficient to make an adequate record on appeal.

So trial counsel beware! At least in Indiana.

Follow up. The original version of the second paragraph of the above post was screwed up by your faithful servant. The corrected version appears there now. Our apologies.