Locust Lake v. Monroe County Bd.

4 Citing cases

  1. RT Partners, L.P. v. The Allegheny Cnty. Office of Prop. Assessment

    307 A.3d 801 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    This timely appeal followed.The trial court cited Locust Lake Village Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Monroe County Board of Assessment Appeals, 940 A. 2d 591, 597 (Pa. Cmwldi. 2008), which held that the law precludes the separate assessment of common facilities, but that it is the taxpayer’s burden to appeal erroneous assessments in the year they are assessed, and the failure to do so is binding and conclusive. See id. (citing Lincoln Phila. Realty Assoc. I v. Bd. of Rev. of Taxes of City and Cnty. of Phila., 563 Pa. 189, 758 A.2d 1178, 1190 (2000) (cleaned up)).

  2. RT Partners, LP v . The Allegheny Cnty. Office of Prop. Assessment

    637 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Sep. 11, 2023)

    The trial court cited Locust Lake Village Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Monroe County Board of Assessment Appeals, 940 A.2d 591, 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), which held that the law precludes the separate assessment of common facilities, but that it is the taxpayer's burden to appeal erroneous assessments in the year they are assessed, and the failure to do so is binding and conclusive. See id. (citing Lincoln Phila. Realty Assoc. I v. Bd. of Rev. of Taxes of City and Cnty. of Phila., 758 A.2d 1178, 1190 (Pa. 2000) (cleaned up)).

  3. Z&R Cab, LLC v. Phila. Parking Auth.

    187 A.3d 1025 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2018)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying McKesson Corp. in a case where licensed taxicab companies sought refunds of all fees and assessments issued by the Philadelphia Parking Authority

    Notably, the Third Circuit's observation in Z & R II concerning the available remedy in this case was consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's analysis in McKesson. Similarly, in Locust Lake Village Property Owners Association v. Monroe County Board of Assessment Appeals, 940 A.2d 591 (Pa Cmwlth. 2008), this Court discussed the principles applicable to determining the appropriate length of time for granting retrospective tax refunds. This Court concluded that the tax assessment challenge in that case entitled the successful claimant to a refund only of excess tax payments, not the entire tax paid.

  4. Herzog v. Mckean Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals

    No. 413 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jan. 27, 2015)

    "Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion." Locust Lake Village Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Monroe County Board of Assessment Appeals, 940 A.2d 591, 594 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). "In examining questions of law, our review is plenary."