In re Appeals from Tax Assessments Imposed Against Various Properties

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

In re Appeals from Tax Assessments Imposed Against Various Properties

475 A.2d 1376, 83 Pa. Commw. 108, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1488

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 7, 1984

DocketAppeal, No. 151 C.D. 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 475 A.2d 1376 (In re Appeals from Tax Assessments Imposed Against Various Properties) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Appeals from Tax Assessments Imposed Against Various Properties, 475 A.2d 1376, 83 Pa. Commw. 108, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1488 (Pa. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge MacPhail,

Appellants¹ appeal from the Pike County Court of Common Pleas’ decision which upheld the Board of Assessment’s (Board) 1980 reassessment of Appellants’ real property.

Pursuant to a county wide reassessment of real property in 1980, the Board reassessed Appellants’ property using 1973 developer sales as comparable sales for determining the fair market value of the property.² Appellants unsuccessfully challenged the reassessment to the Board, and then to the common pleas court contending that the Board should not have used developer sales in determining fair market value because their land was purchased through separate individuals, not developers, and these developer sales were inflated by developer expenses and high pressure sales techniques. Appellants also contend that the Board failed to consider the decline in the fair market value of the property since 1973.

We are satisfied that the common pleas judge in this case, Honorable Harold A. Thomson, P. J., correctly decided the matter. Accordingly, we affirm the common pleas court’s order regarding these contentions and we do so on the opinion of Judge Thomson, reported at 29 Pa. D. & C.3d 155 (1984).

The remaining issue before us is whether the common pleas court abused its discretion by “disregard[110]*110ing” Appellants’ expert witness” opinion that developer sales was an improper basis to determine actual market value. To the contrary, the trial court did not disregard that evidence; rather it weighed that evidence against that presented by the Board and accepted the Board’s evidence. That is not abuse of discretion, it is the proper exercise of discretion.

Order

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, No. 189-1982, dated December 24, 1982 is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge MacPhail,

Appellants¹ appeal from the Pike County Court of Common Pleas’ decision which upheld the Board of Assessment’s (Board) 1980 reassessment of Appellants’ real property.

Pursuant to a county wide reassessment of real property in 1980, the Board reassessed Appellants’ property using 1973 developer sales as comparable sales for determining the fair market value of the property.² Appellants unsuccessfully challenged the reassessment to the Board, and then to the common pleas court contending that the Board should not have used developer sales in determining fair market value because their land was purchased through separate individuals, not developers, and these developer sales were inflated by developer expenses and high pressure sales techniques. Appellants also contend that the Board failed to consider the decline in the fair market value of the property since 1973.

We are satisfied that the common pleas judge in this case, Honorable Harold A. Thomson, P. J., correctly decided the matter. Accordingly, we affirm the common pleas court’s order regarding these contentions and we do so on the opinion of Judge Thomson, reported at 29 Pa. D. & C.3d 155 (1984).

The remaining issue before us is whether the common pleas court abused its discretion by “disregard[110]*110ing” Appellants’ expert witness” opinion that developer sales was an improper basis to determine actual market value. To the contrary, the trial court did not disregard that evidence; rather it weighed that evidence against that presented by the Board and accepted the Board’s evidence. That is not abuse of discretion, it is the proper exercise of discretion.

Order

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, No. 189-1982, dated December 24, 1982 is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 A.2d 1376, 83 Pa. Commw. 108, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-appeals-from-tax-assessments-imposed-against-various-properties-pacommwct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack