Commonwealth Court Cases - Commonwealth Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

þÿ

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

MOST CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT CASES

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Wilkinsburg School District,
:
Appellant
::
v.
:
No. 1036 C.D. 2001
:
Board of Property Assessment,
:
Argued: February 11, 2002
Appeals and Review of Allegheny
:
County (involving the property of
:
Beacon Hill Apartment Associates)
:
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge
OPINION BY
JUDGE SIMPSON
FILED: April 10, 2002
Wilkinsburg School District (school district) petitions this Court for
review of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County's (trial court) grant of
a partial summary judgment in favor of Beacon Hill Apartment Associates
(property owner). That judgment affirmed the reduction of the property owner's
tax assessment for the years prior to 1998 by the Board of Property Assessment,
Appeals and Review of Allegheny County (Board). We affirm.
The trial court found the property had been assessed at a value of
$565,000 for the 1995 tax year. In December 1995, the Allegheny county tax
assessor submitted a change order that would increase the assessment to $960,000
for the 1996 tax year, even though that increase was not based upon any new
buildings, construction, or improvements.
The property owner appealed to the Board, which rolled back the
assessment to the 1995 level. The trial court observed that this rollback was due to

"an unwritten policy of the [Board] that reassessments of real property made in
1995 to be effective for tax year 1996 which increased the value were to be rolled
back automatically to the value existing prior to the reassessment, unless the
increased assessment was based on new buildings, construction, or improvements."
Trial Ct. Op. at 1.
The Board's rollback of the property's tax assessment prompted the
school district's appeal to the trial court. The property owner then filed its motion
for summary judgment in which it sought an order dismissing the school district's
appeal. After a hearing, the trial court allowed the school district to proceed with
its tax assessment appeal for the years 1998 and beyond, but decided the property
owner prevailed for the years prior to1998.
The trial court explained that for the years 1996 and 1997, Allegheny
County property was assessed at 25% of its 1995 fair market value. Because of an
assessment freeze, however, the assessment value for 1996 and 1997 was not at
25% of the fair market value. The trial court found determinative two resolutions
of the Board. The first resolution froze assessments for 19961 and the second
continued the freeze for 1997.2

1 The January 2,1996 resolution read:
Resolved, that in order to remedy any inequities that may have
developed over the years, the Board hereby declares that all
property assessments are immediately frozen: EXCEPT that said
freeze shall not apply to new buildings, construction,
improvements and subdivisions.
R.R. 5a.
2 The January 14, 1997 resolution noted the Board's action of 1/2/96 and resolved to
implement that action by resolving that:
1. The assessments certified for the tax year 1995 are hereby
recertified for the tax year 1997, adjusted for (a) changes of
ownership, (b) changes in status including exempt status, (c)
(Footnote continued on next page...)
2

The school district now asks this Court3 to reverse the trial court
because it alleges that the record did not establish that there was purposeful
discrimination.4 The property owner did not present any evidence of any other
properties that may have been reassessed in 1995 where those property taxes were

(continued...)
changes through tax appeals settled or otherwise decided, (d) the
addition of omitted property, (e) the elimination of gentrification
assessments as required by Court decision, and (f) changes to
physical characteristics of properties, e.g., new construction,
additions and demolitions, (g) the correction of errors previously
approved by the [Board], and (h) subdivisions; see 72 P.S. §
5452.17a.
2. The Established Predetermined Ratio shall remain at 25%,
however, during 1997, assessments for new construction,
additions, omitted property which is discovered, subdivisions and
appeal decision, shall be determined by arriving at current value
and applying the common level ratio, as determined by the State
Equalization Board, in accordance with the law; see 72 P.S.
Section 5452.10 (c) and (d).
3. During the 1997 tax year, the [Board], through its
representatives, shall confer and consult with the Board of County
Commissioners, as required, to plan for the implementation of a
countywide reassessment.
R.R. 6a, 7a.
3 In reviewing the grant of a summary judgment, this Court must apply the same
standard of review as the trial court. It will examine the record in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and resolve all doubts as to the presence of a genuine issue of material fact
against the moving party. Albright v. Abington Memorial Hospital, 548 Pa. 269, 696 A.2d 1159
(1997). An appellate court may not disturb the order of the trial court, absent an error of law or a
clear abuse of discretion. Shono v. Scribe, 546 Pa. 542, 686 A.2d 1292 (1996).
4 Appeal of Armco, Inc., 515 A.2d 326 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986), petition for allowance of
appeal denied, 516 Pa. 643, 533 A.2d 714 (1987)(consolidated appeals from Butler Area School
District et al.). Taxpayers alleging that the administration of a tax violated their right to be taxed
uniformly must demonstrate deliberate, purposeful discrimination in the application of the tax
before constitutional safeguards are violated.
3

rolled back. Consequently, the school district concludes it was error for the trial
court to disturb the presumptive validity of the Board's assessment. Fosko v.
Board of Assessment Appeals, Luzerne County. 646 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1994).
A governmental body must apply the same methodology for valuing real
property to all property within its jurisdiction. City of Lancaster v. Lancaster
County, 599 A.2d 289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). In City of Lancaster this Court
concluded that Lancaster County's use of different assessment methods in certain
areas, as well as making unsubstantiated wholesale adjustments to grade and
depreciation factors violated the uniformity requirement of Article VII, Section 1
of the Pennsylvania Constitution. We ordered a countywide reassessment pursuant
to a court-ordered time frame.
Here, the Board stipulated that the event that would trigger a new assessment
was a new building, construction, improvements, or subdivisions. There had been
no such event that would cause an increase in the property's value. Any successful
appeal by the school district (or any other taxing body) during the 1996, 1997 tax
years for any reason except the three triggering events would result in a de facto
spot assessment.
The school district's remedy was to attack the legality of the freeze,
not to take an action that would create a different methodology for one property
owner. A tax assessment freeze was in place, the legality of which was not
litigated. Property tax appeals could commence if the triggering events occurred.
Here, none did. The reassessment is presumptively valid.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
4

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Wilkinsburg School District,
:
Appellant
::
v.
:
No. 1036 C.D. 2001
:
Board of Property Assessment,
:
Appeals and Review of Allegheny
:
County (involving the property of
:
Beacon Hill Apartment Associates)
:
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2002, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge