Pinecrest Lake Community Trust ex rel. Carroll v. Monroe County Board of Assessment Appeals
64 A.3d 71
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Pinecrest Lake Community Trust (Trust) holds common areas and facilities for Pinecrest Lake Community under a 1984 Trust Agreement.
- Developer created the Pinecrest Lake Community (PRD) with an 18-hole golf course in 1998, subdividing golf parcels to Wild Pines Golf Club, LLC.
- In 2011 the Trust acquired fee simple title to the seven golf course parcels from Wild Pines and challenged the tax assessments.
- Board denied the Trust’s request for a Class 6 Amenity/zero assessment under UPCA § 5105(b) after the 2011–2012 years.
- trial court held UPCA applies, the Trust acts as an association for purposes of common or controlled facilities, and the golf course is exempt from separate taxation.
- This appeal follows the Board’s challenge to those rulings; the court affirms largely on the trial court’s reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the golf course qualifies as a common facility under UPCA. | Trust contends the Trust functions as an association; golf course is common facility. | Board argues Trust not a unit owners’ association; golf course not exempt. | Yes; Trust functions as an association and the golf course is a common facility exempt under 68 Pa.C.S. § 5105(b)(1). |
| Whether UPCA applies to preexisting communities and retroactivity limits. | Trust argues UPCA applies retroactively to preexisting communities as needed. | Board argues preexisting community should stay under common law unless UPCA retroactively applied; organizational requirements not applicable. | UPCA applies; preexisting community may be governed by Trust’s structure consistent with UPCA, without invalidating 1984 Trust. |
| Whether the golf course is convertible/withdrawable real estate and hence taxable. | Trust argues § 5105(b)(2) does not apply; no declarant rights reserve conversion. | Board contends it could be convertible/withdrawable real estate. | Not convertible/withdrawable; § 5105(b)(2) does not apply; E.L.C.A. control. |
| Whether memberships outside the unit owners and employee privileges affect exemption. | Saw Creek approach supports exemption despite outside memberships. | Saw Creek excludes only when not common facilities; here potential outside access could undermine exemption. | Saw Creek principle applied; golf course remains common facility exempt regardless of outside memberships. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saw Creek Community Association, Inc. v. County of Pike, 581 Pa. 436 (Pa. 2005) (restaurant and sales office as common facilities under UPCA)
- E.L.C.A. Development Corp. v. Lackawanna County Board of Assessment Appeals, 752 A.2d 466 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (rejected convertible/withdrawable real estate for common facilities)
- Timber Trails Community Association v. County of Monroe, 150 Pa.Cmwlth.29 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992) (outside memberships and employee privileges can affect taxable value of common areas)
- Rybarchyk v. Pocono Summit Lake Property Owners Association, 49 A.3d 31 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (distinguished voluntary associations; relevance to planned community status)
- Lake Naomi Club, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 782 A.2d 1121 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001) (golf course common facility; negotiated stipulations in UPCA context)