Opinion
338 C.D. 2014
02-03-2015
Samuel Smith, Appellant v. Washington County Board of Assessment
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY
Samuel Smith (Appellant) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County (trial court) that denied Appellant's tax assessment appeal from the Washington County Board of Assessment Appeals' (Board of Assessment Appeals) conclusion that the fair market value of Appellant's property was $62,461.00 with a tax assessment value of $15,641.00.
On July 1, 2011, Appellant purchased a commercial property located in Bentleyville, Pennsylvania at a judicial sale in the amount of $7,322.00. The "property was assessed for tax purposes at a market value of $140,600 and an assessed value of $35,150." Appeal from Board of Assessment Appeals, November 30, 2011, Paragraphs 3 at 1. Appellant filed an appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals which reduced the assessment to reflect a market value of $62,461.00 with an assessed value of the property at $15,614.00.
Appellant filed an assessment appeal to the trial court and a January 30, 2014, hearing was conducted where Bradley Boni (Boni) and Appellant testified.
Boni, Chief Assessor for Washington County, testified that "[t]he property was subject to a general appeal in 2011, which would make any assessment change effective [for] tax year . . . 2012. The value of the property, specifically on the improvements, was reduced by 60% from an overall assessed value of $35,150.00 . . . to $15,615.00 [sic] total." Hearing Transcript (H.T.), May 15, 2014, at 4-5. Boni continued:
Appellant has reproduced the hearing transcript in his Reproduced Record (R.R) but has failed to assign a R.R. page number to the hearing transcript.
Mr. Smith [Appellant] acquired the property at a judicial sale in June of 2011 for nonpayment of property taxes. The owner at the time was no longer the bank, it was the Bentleyville Hardware and Plumbing Store. I believe they [sic] owned the building across the street. They acquired this building from the bank in the late nineties and at some point in time there they stopped paying the taxes and the property was subject to a tax sale.H.T. at 5-6. Boni disagreed that the fair market value of the property was $7,322.00, the amount Appellant paid for the property at the tax sale, because "strictly based on the fact that the sale price was a compromised figure at a tax sale . . . [i]t certainly was not a market value, arm's length transaction." H.T. at 6. Boni concluded that the value expressed by the Board of Assessment Appeals was the 1981 value:
The County's last reassessment was effective tax year, 1981. That's our established base year here in Washington County. At the hearing there was no
mention of current market appraisals, so it was considered a base-year appeal. So the Board was reducing a base-year value down to a lesser base-year value.H.T. at 7.
Appellant, appearing pro se, testified:
I wanted the Court to consider my comparables. I've taken pictures of other buildings that are nearby in Bentleyville. It's hard to come up with something identical. A lot of the buildings I came up with were commercial and they are a business currently operating in those buildings. They are apparently up to code, because-some- I have these exhibits [a total of eight] for you if you would like to look at them.H.T. at 12. Additionally, the following exchange took place between Blane Black (Black), Solicitor for the Washington County Board of Assessment, and Appellant:
[Black]: Do you know what market value is, the definition of market value?
[Appellant]: It's four times the assessed value.
[Black]: No. I'm not talking about what we have as market value. Do you know what, in real estate terms, in real estate parlance, what market value is?
[Appellant]: Still learning.
[Black]: You have no idea what it means, what someone is willing to pay for a property? Do you understand that?
[Appellant]: (No verbal response.)
[Black]: You're not a licensed appraiser? (Emphasis added.)
[Appellant]: No. (Emphasis added.)H.T. at 21-22. Appellant concluded that even though the assessment value of the property was reduced fifty-five percent he felt that it was not the true value of the property. H.T. at 24. Appellant admitted that he should have had an appraisal done on the property. H.T. at 24.
[Black]: When you came to the hearing with the Board, did you have any documentation with you to support your contention that the building should be reduced in value?
[Appellant]: I don't recall giving them comps. I do recall taking pictures and I presented a case of the renovations the building needs and the damages being rundown for sitting vacant for so long.
[Black]: What have you done in the two and a half years that you've owned the property?
[Appellant]: Not much . . . .
The trial court denied Appellant's appeal and concluded:
The Board properly presented its assessment records into evidence. The records noted the property's fair market value to be $62,461.00 and an assessed value at $15,614.00. The burden then shifted to the Appellant to rebut the Board's prima facie case. The Appellant was unable to produce any evidence this Court can find to be sufficient to rebut the assessment.
. . . .
At the hearing, the Appellant provided no expert testimony or reports. The case law does not explicitly require an expert's testimony and conclusions; however, such testimony can assist the Court in making a finding, particular in commercial cases. The Appellant has not had the property appraised since acquiring it in 2011. As
such, the evidence was insufficient to rebut the Board's assessment. (Emphasis added.)Opinion of the Trial Court, February 5, 2014, at 2-3.
. . . .
The Appellant only presented the Board's fair market values of the alleged comparable properties. No evidence was presented that demonstrated that the properties had a lower fair market value . . . .
Before this Court, Appellant contends:
This Court's review in a tax assessment appeal is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or whether its decision is supported by substantial evidence. Cedarbrook Realty, Inc. v. Cheltenham Township, 611 A.2d 335, 340 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 621 A.2d 582 (Pa. 1992).
1. The trial court erred or abused its discretion by failing to credit the evidence presented as to recent purchase price and comparable values.Brief of Appellant, Statement of Questions Involved at 1.
2. The trial court erred or abused its discretion by failing to credit the substantive reasonableness of the Appellant's testimony regarding value of the subjective property.
These issues were raised and argued before the trial court and ably disposed of in the opinion of the Honorable Katherine B. Emery, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County. Therefore, this Court shall affirm on the basis of Judge Emery's opinion. Samuel Smith v. Washington County Board of Assessment Appeals, (Trial Opinion Pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, No. 2011-8723), filed May 21, 2014.
On April 30, 2014, the trial court determined "pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b), the Court directs Samuel Smith, plaintiff, pro se, to file a Statement of the Matters Complained of on Appeal with the Washington County Prothonotary's Office . . . [a] failure to comply . . . shall be considered as a waiver to all objections and/or issues . . . ." Order of April 30, 2014, at 1. Certified Record (C.R.) at 8. In Appellant's Rule 1925(b) Statement, Appellant raised the identical issues that are now before this Court. See Appellant's Rule 1925(b) Statements of Grounds for Appeal, May 12, 2014, at 1-4; C.R. at 9.
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2015, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
Image materials not available for display.