A. Maula v. Northampton County Division of Assessment and County of Northampton
149 A.3d 442
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Anthony Maula enrolled three contiguous parcels (Parcels A: 26.7 ac; B: 55.2 ac; C: 2.88 ac) in Pennsylvania’s Clean and Green preferential assessment program in 2009.
- Maula failed to pay $266.12 in taxes on Parcel C for several years; the County sold Parcel C at a tax sale and conveyed title to a third party in March 2014.
- After the tax sale, the County reassessed the contiguous tract, removed Parcel B from the preferential assessment, and imposed roll-back taxes for all parcels.
- Maula appealed to the County Revenue Appeals Board, which upheld the assessment; the trial court reversed, holding no "split-off" under the Act.
- The County appealed, arguing that Maula’s failure to pay taxes constituted "other action of the owner" that effected a split-off and triggered roll-back taxes; Maula argued nonpayment was not an owner action sufficient to constitute a split-off.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maula) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a tax sale triggered by a landowner's failure to pay taxes constitutes a "split-off" under the Clean and Green Act | Failure to pay taxes is mere inaction and not a "conveyance or other action of the owner," so no split-off occurred | Maula’s nonpayment was an "other action of the owner" that caused the tax sale and thus a split-off, triggering roll-back taxes | Held: No. Nonpayment leading to a tax sale is not a "conveyance or other action of the owner" under the Act; roll-back taxes do not apply |
| Whether the statute's phrase "other action of the owner" should be read broadly to include omissions like tax nonpayment | "Other action" requires affirmative, owner-performed division (conveyance-like conduct); omissions do not qualify | "Other action" includes conduct/omission that foreseeably causes division (nonpayment resulting in tax sale) | Held: "Other action" construed in context (and via ejusdem generis) as similar to conveyance; omission here insufficient |
| Whether imposing roll-back taxes would conflict with the Act’s remedial purpose of preventing windfalls from division of enrolled land | Maula: Imposing roll-back where owner was involuntarily dispossessed would be inequitable and not the Act’s target | County: The Act targets any owner conduct that results in division to prevent windfalls from preferential treatment | Held: Court concluded Maula did not "conduct" the split-off; concern about windfall does not override statutory text |
| Whether record supported finding that Maula intentionally caused the tax sale to avoid roll-back liability | Maula: No evidence he intended to cause a sale; record inadequate to show intentional conduct | County: Multiple notices were sent; nonpayment was knowing and thus causative | Held: Record insufficient to show owner-conduct causing a split-off; liability cannot be imposed on mere nonpayment here |
Key Cases Cited
- Sher v. Berks Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 940 A.2d 629 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (describing Clean and Green program purpose)
- Feick v. Berks Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 720 A.2d 504 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (explaining preferential assessment and split-off consequences)
- Saenger v. Berks Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 732 A.2d 681 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (holding an owner’s conveyance that created a sub-10-acre tract constituted a split-off)
- Moyer v. Berks Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 803 A.2d 833 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (distinguishing split-off vs. separation and tax consequences)