S.S. Stas and L. Stas v. Susquehanna County Board of Assessment Appeals
21 C.D. 2017
Pa. Commw. Ct.Oct 5, 2017Background
- Taxpayers (Stefan and Loretta Stas) own a 64.23-acre property in Susquehanna County improved with a large home, hangar, runway and outbuildings; county assessment (2014) set assessed value at $219,500 (50% assessment ratio) and fair market value at $439,000.
- Taxpayers appealed the Board of Assessment Appeals’ denial of their request to reduce the 2014–2016 assessments; three de novo hearings were held in trial court in 2016.
- Taxpayers presented appraiser Bosley (valued the four‑acre parcel and improvements at $340,000 but admitted he did not appraise the entire parcel); the Board presented county assessor Button and appraiser Henkleman (appraised all acreage and improvements at $590,000 but conducted an off‑site appraisal).
- Trial court found the Board had established a prima facie case for the assessment and that Taxpayers failed to overcome it with wholly credible evidence; trial court therefore denied the assessment appeal on December 16, 2016.
- Taxpayers filed a timely appeal to this Court but failed to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement as ordered by the trial court; this Court affirmed the trial court’s order on waiver grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taxpayers preserved issues by filing a Rule 1925(b) statement | Stas: proceeded on multiple appraisal-based challenges to assessment (value, improvement grading, uniformity) | Board: Taxpayers failed to follow trial-court order; issues not preserved | Court: Taxpayers waived all issues by failing to file the Rule 1925(b) statement as ordered |
| Whether this Court may dismiss/sustain on waiver sua sponte for Rule 1925(b) noncompliance | Stas: procedural noncompliance should not bar review of valuation merits | Board: waiver doctrine and precedent permit dismissal for failure to preserve issues | Court: Court may affirm on waiver; dismissal/sanction for noncompliance is appropriate (citing Gibraltar Rock) |
| Whether post-trial motions under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 were required to preserve issues | Stas: (implicitly) argues preservation of issues | Board: contends Taxpayers waived by not filing post-trial motions | Court: Rule 227.1 not mandatory in statutory tax appeals absent local rule adoption; failure to file 227.1 motions not the basis for waiver here |
| Merits: whether Board’s assessment lacked credible rebuttal | Stas: Bosley’s appraisal showed lower value and criticized county uniformity | Board: County and Henkleman established assessment; Henkleman’s higher off-site appraisal supported valuation | Court: Trial court found prima facie case established and Taxpayers did not credibly overcome it, but appellate court did not reach merits because of waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Schuylkill County Board of Assessment Appeals, 772 A.2d 419 (Pa. 2001) (establishing that the assessment record raises a prima facie case of validity)
- Gibraltar Rock, Inc. v. New Hanover Township, 118 A.3d 461 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (appellate court may dismiss or affirm based on an appellant’s failure to preserve issues)
- In re Clinton County Tax Claims Bureau Consolidated Return for Sale of September 24, 2012, 109 A.3d 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (failure to timely file a Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
- Hess v. Fox Rothschild, LLP, 925 A.2d 798 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Rule 1925(b) compliance is mandatory and failure to comply leads to waiver)
- Appeal of Borough of Churchill, 575 A.2d 550 (Pa. 1990) (Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically apply to statutory appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771 (Pa. 2005) (discusses limits on applying Civil Procedural rules to statutory appeals)