Grand Prix Harrisburg, LLC v. Dauphin County Board of Assessment Appeals
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 253
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Taxpayer owns a four‑acre parcel in Swatara Twp, Dauphin County, with a Residence Inn hotel (12 buildings, 122 rooms).
- 2009 county assessment set at $7,958,700 based on FMV of $11,288,900; Board denied Taxpayer’s challenge.
- Trial court conducted de novo hearing with Taxpayer, Board, and taxing authorities; prima facie case deemed established by tax card.
- Taxpayer offered Lesavoy’s appraisal; taxing authorities offered Noone’s appraisal; both sides presented expert testimony and rebuttal.
- Trial court credited Noone’s income approach and set FMV at $13,150,000, leading to an assessment higher than the taxpayer’s challenge; Taxpayer appeals.
- Court vacates and remands for new findings and credibility determinations with complete explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit credibility without adequate explanation | Taxpayer argues Noone’s credibility cannot outweigh Lesavoy where differences are explained. | Taxing Authorities rely on Noone’s focused, property-specific analysis and credibility findings. | Remanded for new findings and credibility explanations. |
| Treatment of Business Value in valuation | Lesavoy properly accounted for Business Value in income and capitalization rates; Noone did not. | Noone considered income as basis, with Business Value reflected in NOI, not in cap rate. | Court failed to explain capitalization-rate differences; remand for proper findings. |
| Reliability of sales comparison approach | Noone admitted deducting Furniture/Business Value inconsistently; flaws undermine reliance on sales approach. | Noone’s sales approach used as check against income approach; industry practice acceptable. | Trial court must address flaws and relation to income approach on remand. |
| Need to discuss flaws in Noone’s sales approach and Noone vs. Lesavoy comparison | The court ignored differences and admitted flaws, omitting reconciliation with income approach. | Credibility determinations supported by Noone’s property-focused analysis. | Remand to provide complete explanation of why Noone’s value supports or does not support the final figure. |
| Appropriate remedy on review | If necessary, hold new hearing and reevaluate all valuations. | Appellate court deferential to trial court credibility decisions. | Remand to conduct further proceedings with explicit findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buhl Foundation v. Board of Property Assessment Appeals & Review of Allegheny County, 407 Pa. 567 (Pa. 1962) (invalid factor if used to fix FMV; proper guidance for appraisal weighting)
- Parkview Court Associates v. Delaware County Board of Assessment Appeals, 959 A.2d 515 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (trial court is ultimate finder of fact in de novo assessment appeals)
- RAS Development Corp. v. Fayette County Board of Assessment Appeals, 704 A.2d 1130 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997) (trial court credibility and weight of evidence within its discretion)
- Herzog v. McKean County Board of Assessment Appeals, 14 A.3d 193 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (substantial evidence standard; trial court findings must be supported)
- Green v. Schuylkill County Board of Assessment Appeals, 565 Pa. 185 (Pa. 2001) (trial court must state basis for credibility determinations; may diverge between experts)
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Board of Property Assessment of Allegheny County, 539 Pa. 453 (Pa. 1995) (principle that explanations aid substantial evidence review)