ARMCO Adv. Materials Corp. v. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Butler County
ARMCO Adv. Materials Corp. v. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Butler County - 546 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- Taxpayer (ARMCO Advanced Materials) owns a 1,256.927-acre parcel with a functioning steel mill (AK Steel Butler Works) in Butler County, PA; county assessment was $2,915,733 for tax year 2015.
- County CLRs produced implied market values of ~$25.6M (2015) and ~$27.5M (2016); Board of Assessment Appeals sustained the county assessment.
- A Board of Arbitrators reduced market value to $18.6M (assessment $2,120,400); Taxpayer appealed to the trial court.
- At trial, Taxpayer’s appraiser Griffith opined a market value of $8.4M, treating the plant as a nonfunctional (dead) facility and valuing 650 acres at zero; appellees’ appraiser King opined $18.62M, treating the highest and best use as continued operation as a steel mill and using functioning industrial comparables.
- The trial court rejected Griffith’s appraisal (comparables dissimilar; FAR adjustments improper; testified 600+ acres had no value) and accepted King’s appraisal (comparables similar; reasonable adjustments), resulting in assessments of $2,122,680 (2015–16) and $1,973,720 (2016–17).
- Taxpayer appealed, arguing legal error for relying on current use/highest and best use without market support and that the court improperly disregarded Griffith; Commonwealth Court affirmed, deferring to trial court credibility and finding substantial evidence supporting King and rejecting Griffith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taxpayer) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred as a matter of law in adopting King’s appraisal | King improperly treated current use (functioning steel mill) as highest and best use without market demand evidence; relied on a bankruptcy sale that may include personal property | King based highest-and-best-use on marketplace reality (facility is functional); did not use value-in-use or business profitability; bankruptcy doc did not show inclusion of personal property | Court held no legal error; trial court’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence and King did not use value-in-use |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by rejecting Griffith’s appraisal | Griffith’s testimony was mischaracterized; his FAR approach merely valued unusable acres differently and should not have been entirely disregarded | Trial court found Griffith testified 650 acres had zero value and his comparables were dissimilar and poorly adjusted; credibility and weight are for trial court | Court held no abuse of discretion; trial court properly rejected Griffith based on record and credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Buhl Foundation v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County, 180 A.2d 900 (Pa. 1962) (defines fair market value and role of expert opinion)
- Grand Prix Harrisburg, LLC v. Dauphin County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 51 A.3d 275 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (an appraiser’s use of improper factors can render opinion insubstantial)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Lehigh County Board of Assessment Appeals, 692 A.2d 661 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (continued use may be considered highest and best use when market demand makes it reasonably probable)
- Parkview Court Associates v. Delaware County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 959 A.2d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (trial court is exclusive finder of credibility and weight of evidence)