Opinion
C.A. No. 06A-06-012 WCC.
Submitted: February 1, 2007.
Decided: April 27, 2007.
Appeal from New Castle County Board of Assessment Review. REMANDED.
William J. Rhodunda, Jr., Esquire; Oberly, Jennings Rhodunda, P.A.; 1220 Market Street, Suite 710; P.O. Box 2054; Wilmington, Delaware 19899. Attorney for Appellant.
Marlaine A. White, Esquire; Assistant County Attorney; New Castle County Office of Law; 87 Reads Way; New Castle, Delaware 19720. Attorney for Appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Introduction
Before this Court is One River Place, LLC's appeal of the decision of the New Castle County Board of Assessment Review (the "Board"), in which the Board upheld the decision of the Department of Finance to disallow an exemption for the 2005-2006 fiscal year. The Department of Finance determined One River Place failed to timely submit its exemption for the 2005 tax year, and while One River Place is entitled to the exemption beginning July 1, 2006, it is not eligible for the exemption in the previous year. The Board upheld the Department of Finance's determination, and One River Place has appealed. Upon review of the record, this Court finds the Board's decision must be REMANDED.
Tr., New Castle County Bd. of Assessment Review, Docket Nos. 1248, 1249, at Ex. 11. (The record from the proceedings below will hereinafter be referred to as "R at ___").
Facts
On June 2, 2005, the City of Wilmington (the "City") conveyed Tax Parcel Number 26.042-00.027 ("Parcel 027") to the Riverfront Development Company ("RDC"). One day later, RDC conveyed both Parcel 027 and Tax Parcel Number 26.042-00.007 ("Parcel 007") to One River Place. On June 6, 2005, One River Place requested that the Department of Land Use combine Parcel 027 and Parcel 007 (collectively "the parcels") for tax purposes since the parcels were to be used to develop one complex. This request was granted by New Castle County (the "County") and on June 7, 2005 a letter to that effect was issued to One River Place advising it that Parcel 007 and Parcel 027 would thereafter be combined as one parcel under Parcel 027. The County maintains the merger of the two parcels was not completed until August 23, 2005.
R. at Ex. 1.
R. at Ex. 2.
Specifically, the letter from the Department of Land Use, dated June 7, 2005 stated, "Thank you for your inquiry about the combination of Tax Parcels 26-042.00-007 and 26-042.00-027 into one Tax Parcel Number. These parcels have been combined under Tax Parcel 26-042.00-027." R. at Ex. 3.
R. at Ex. 11.
In late June, prior to the completion of the merger of the parcels but after the June 7th letter was issued, the County issued a change notice indicating that the AAA complex built on the parcels was valued at $7,248,100 ("assessment change notice"). The assessment change notice further indicated that this value would be applied to Parcel 007, leaving Parcel 027 as a land-only parcel with a continued exemption. The assessment change notice stated its effective date was July 1, 2005, and indicated that any appeal of the supplemental assessment was to be filed no later than thirty days from that date.
R. at Ex. 8.
According to the County, prior to the conveyance of Parcel 027 to One River Place, that parcel received a general property tax exemption since it had been owned by the City. Parcel 007, however, did not receive such exemption since taxes were paid in 2004 waiving any eligible exemption right. The exemption on Parcel 027 would remain until the County placed Parcel 027 on the supplemental assessment roll to remove the exemption. R. at Ex. 11.
R. at Ex. 8.
One River Place asserts that it did not receive the June assessment change notice, and that the first correspondence from the County regarding the parcels was a tax bill for Parcel 007 received by One River Place on August 2, 2005. It is One River Place's contention that this tax bill was sent in error since, pursuant to the County's previous letter, Parcel 007 was combined with Parcel 027 on June 7, 2005. Thus, on September 16, 2005 a letter from One River Place's counsel was sent to the County indicating its above-stated position. Also included in the September 16th letter was the Tax Incentive Exemption Form for Parcel 027, which One River Place believed also encompassed Parcel 007, for the 2005-2006 tax year.
R. at Ex. 3.
R. at Ex. 9.
R. at Ex. 10.
On October 25, 2005 the County responded to One River Place's inquiry advising One River Place that Parcel 007 was merged into Parcel 027 for tax purposes, but that the merger did not occur prior to the appropriate assessment change notice sent in late June 2005. As a result, it was the County's position that One River Place was required to file the tax exemption form for Parcel 007 within thirty days of the July 1, 2005 effective date indicated on the assessment change notice. The County further advised One River Place of its right to appeal the County's position, which One River Place asserted.
R. at Ex. 11.
Upon appeal, the Board held a hearing on the matter on May 17, 2005, and at its conclusi on, the Boa rd voted t o deny One Riv er Place's appeal. On May 24, 2005 the Board issued its written decision stating the same. One River Place has appealed the Board's decision, and the matter is now before this Court.
R. at 37-38.
One River Place, LLC v. New Castle County Dep't of Finance, New Castle County Bd. of Assessment Review, Docket Nos. 1248, 1249 (May 24, 2006).
Standard of Review
On an appeal from the board of an administrative agency, it is this Court's role to determine if the board's decision was based on substantial evidence and free from legal error. In doing so "[t]he decision of each board of assessment or department of finance shall be prima facie correct and the burden of proof shall be on the appellant to show that such body acted contrary to law, fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously." If a question of both fact and law is presented to this Court, it must first consider whether the factual findings made by the board are "supported by substantial evidence." The Court then must consider the law and decide whether the board properly applied the facts as it found them to be. The Court will not reevaluate the evidence, determine questions of credibility or make its own findings of fact. Thus, if the Court is unable to ascertain from the record what factual conclusions the board has drawn, or if the Court is unable to determine if the proper theory of law was applied, the case will be remanded to the board for further proceedings.
Lindsay v. Chrysler Corp., 1994 WL 750345 (Del.Super.Ct.).
9 Del. C. § 8312(c); Univ. of Del. v. New Castle County Dep't of Land Use, 2003 WL 220509, *5 (Del.Super.Ct.).
Migration Dialogue, Inc. v. New Castle County Bd. of Assessment Review, 1999 WL 464039, *1 (Del.Super.Ct.).
Id.
Id.; Brandywine Inn Keepers, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Assessment Review of New Castle County, 2005 WL 1952879, *3-4 (Del.Super.Ct.).
Bd. of Public Educ. in Wilmington v. Rimlinger, 232 A.2d 98, 101 (Del. 1967) (The parties agreed that the appellee was injured due to a fall while at work, but the parties disputed whether the fall also caused additional injuries. The board merely stated that the appellant did not establish beyond a preponderance of the evidence that appellee's disability was terminated. Without an explanation of how the board resolved the cause of appellee's injuries, the Court could not appropriately review the record to determine the Board followed the law, and the Court remanded the case to the Industrial Accident Board.); see also Property Asset Mgmt, Inc. v. New Castle County Dep't of Fin., 1995 WL 656792, *2-3 (Del.Super.Ct.) ("Without an adequate statement of findings of fact, the orderly process of administrative review suffers because the reviewing Court cannot properly exercise its function.") (citing Barnes v. Panero, 238 A.2d 608 (Del. 1968)).
Discussion
The Board hears appeals filed from those disputing tax assessments, and in doing so, the Board must follow the directive of 9 Del. C. § 8312(b):
Each board of assessment or department of finance shall sit and hear all appeals properly filed and shall permit the introduction of all relevant evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, presented by the appellant. Each board of assessment or department of finance shall make and keep a record of all evidence presented at such appeal proceedings. Each board of assessment or department of finance shall notify the appellant in writing, by registered mail, of its decision within 5 days of the date of its decision.
Pursuant to the above, the Board is not required to express findings of fact in its decisions. However, the Supreme Court has cautioned administrative agencies that, in order for a court to properly review its rulings, express findings of facts are a necessity:
Usually the Board would be well advised to include [findings of subsidiary facts]. There are occasions when the Court can readily infer from the ultimate findings and the record just what the subordinate findings must have been; in those instances, a remand for further findings would be a pure formality. But when the Court cannot determine, from the ultimate findings and the record, whether the Board proceeded upon a correct theory of law, or whether its findings are based upon competent evidence, the necessity for the inclusion of subordinate findings is apparent.
Rimlinger, 232 A.2d at 101.
In the case sub judice, it is unclear how the Board reached its conclusion to disallow the exemption requested by One River Place, and this Court cannot speculate which factual conclusions the Board reached, nor which theory of law the Board followed in rendering its decision.
At the May 17, 2005 hearing, the Board heard oral argument and testimony from both parties regarding the supplemental assessment applied to the parcels. Immediately thereafter, the Board voted three to one in favor of denying One River Place's appeal and disallowing an exemption for the 2005 tax year. But there was no explanation placed on the record for the basis of that decision. The Board then filed its written opinion on May 24, 2005 ("Board Opinion") wherein the Board provided a summary of the hearing, including the arguments of counsel and the testimony of each witness. After a recitation of the facts and evidence each side presented, the Board Opinion concluded with:
At the conclusion of the evidence and the closing arguments, Ms. Wright presented a motion that the appeal be denied. The motion was seconded. . . The Acting Chairperson announced that the appeal was denied.
One River Place, LLC, New Castle County Bd. of Assessment Review, Docket Nos. 1248, 1249.
But, the Board failed to indicate which set of contradicting facts the Board adopted, nor did the Board provide any analysis as to how it reached its final conclusion. For instance, the Board failed to state whether it concluded that an assessment change notice was sent in June 2005, or whether an assessment change notice sent to Parcel 007 was appropriate to trigger the thirty day appeal period. In fact, the Board failed to even address if or when the thirty day appeal period began, making it impossible to determine if One River Place timely filed an appeal.
Unfortunately, the Court is not a mind reader, and a mere synopsis of the arguments and testimony presented at the hearing is insufficient. For judicial review to be effective, there must be some identifiable basis for an administrative agency's decision. Here, the Board merely restated what occurred at the hearing, but there are simply no factual conclusions articulated by the Board, and nothing to show this Court the legal basis upon which it reached its final decision. As a result, the Court is unable to determine if the Board Decision is based on substantial evidence or if it is contrary to law, fraudulent, arbitrary or capricious, leaving the Court no choice but to remand the matter.
As such, the Board has sixty days to file an opinion which articulates its findings of facts as well as a basis for its conclusions. When doing so, the Board should specifically determine what effect, if any, the merger of the parcels has on the supplemental assessment; whether a proper assessment change notice was sent to One River Place in June 2005 causing the thirty day appeal period to be triggered; and when the thirty day period expired. If necessary, the Board should also determine whether the assessment change notice was properly issued based on the status of the certificate of occupancy and status of the completion of the AAA complex at the time. Further, the Board should not limit itself to these enumerated issues, but instead is required to fully and completely provide this Court a basis for its determination so that a proper review may be made if a subsequent appeal is filed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons and pursuant to 9 Del. C. § 8312(c), this matter is REMANDED to the Board.
9 Del. C. § 8312(c) (Supp. 2006) states, in pertinent part:
The Court may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of such body and the decision of the Court shall be final. The Court at its discretion may also remand the matter to the board to clarify issues of fact or to make findings consistent with the Court's decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.