Beattie v. Allegheny County

original con- provision of the posedly by agree- arbitration post-contract settled tract, must ex- agreement ment the of those issues is still the settlement resolution by original nullify Con- governed terms cancel or otherwise pressly rejected. tract until those terms are provision origi- or Agreement, arbitration obligations mere clarification of parties.1 the two nal Contract between fact changes amounts does not alter the this matter Accordingly, we reverse and an original there was Contract to the trial court for referral is remanded specified forum would dispute where in accordance of the matter to arbitration be settled. The use of an arbitration with the contract. dispute clause to establish a forum for system resolution outside the court is fa- ORDER employed, will vored the law and once NOW, day April, 15th AND not be later deleted from the contract un- Pleas of the order of the Court of Common rejected in expressly agree- less a later captioned in the above Beaver Supreme ment. The Court has stated: this matter is re- matter is reversed and disputes by Settlements of arbitration trial court for referral of manded to the longer contrary public are no deemed in accordance the matter to arbitration fact, policy. encourage our statutes with the contract. arbitration our and with dockets crowd- jurisdictions congested ed and some relinquished. Jurisdiction arbitration is favored courts....

An enjoining par- order arbitration of a grievance granted

ticular should not be it may positive

unless be said with as-

surance that in- the arbitration clause interpre-

volved is not susceptible to dispute. tation that covers the asserted Ellis, BEATTIE, Henrietta Gertrude (Citations Omitted). Rummel, Walls, Ken Karen Sandra Valley Pierce and Mon Unem neth University Lincoln Commonwealth Committee, ployed on their own be System Higher Education v. Lincoln half and on behalf of all others University Chapter American Associa- similarly situated, Appellants University Professors, tion Of (1976). 119, 123, 576, 580, 581-82 The fact that the issue of arbitra COUNTY, Pennsylvania, ALLEGHENY Agree tion was not discussed the letter Roddey, Executive its Chief James leads to the conclusion that the letter ment Manatron, Inc. Agreement merely was a settlement of and not a parties other issues between the Pennsylvania. Commonwealth novation, i.e., entirely. a new Contract 4, 2004. Argued Feb. original contains an When the Contract 15, 2004. April Decided clause, parties encouraged are arbitration Agreements settlement when dis have putes arise but in order to cancel the remaining issues. dispute subject to address the to the arbitration need As the contract, original no clause in the there is Quisenberry, Pittsburgh, ap- pleadings

Kevin their have asserted determining that the method of pellant. the market value homes has resulted in Janocsko, George Pittsburgh, ap- M. lack of uniformity an unconstitutional un- pellee. VIII, 1 of Pennsyl- der Article Section COLINS, Judge, BEFORE: President vania Constitution. do not al- McGINLEY, PELLEGRINI, Judge, lege inappropriately has FRIEDMAN, COHN, Judge, Judge, applied disparate ratios to valid home val- SIMPSON, LEAVITT, Judge, Judge and ues, but rather the converse —that Judge. method the used to determine val- ue of homes has led to over-valuation of Judge OPINION BY President 80,000 homes that have a trae value below COLINS. $50,000, of and an under-valuation homes (Tax- The members of this class action higher Complaint, that have actual values. payers) appeal an order of the Court of paragraph 53. County Allegheny Common Pleas of that (1) Taxpayers following raise the issues: preliminary objections by sustained filed concluding whether the trial court erred in Allegheny County, its former Chief Execu- that avail of Taxpayers must themselves tive, Manatron, Roddey, James and Inc. (2) available; statutory remedies they are The class members aver that dismissing trial court in whether the erred homeowners whose houses have actual val- 1983; § 42 Taxpayers’ claim under U.S.C. $50,000 less, or that the ues and contend (3) County’s whether the 2002 assessment County’s system has assessment caused County’s comply failed to with the Assess- 80,000 approximately such homes to be ment and Practices Standards Ordinance over-assessed, signifi- a and also caused produced because the PRDs assessment cant to be high-value number of homes (4) 1.03; greater than and whether in complaint1 under-assessed. Them filed trial in that Tax- concluding court erred equity challenges constitutionality to payers’ challenge the 2001 assessment is assessment, County’s property and moot. declaratory, injunctive, seeks and mone- tary relief. Equity Uniformity 1. over Jurisdiction County that the had Taxpayers asserted Challenge Clause by the adopted

failed to follow a standard County Taxpayers argue in and the trial its Assessment Standards first in granting pre- contend court erred Practices Ordinance. liminary objections they have required because this standard question Dif- produce assessment to Price Related raised substantial constitutional (PRDs)2 greater regarding uniformity of the 2001 and ferentials no 1.033 assessments, no ade- county-wide inter-municipality and 2002 and there is on a basis, remedy address the quate statutory assessment to satisfy by this standard. harm caused the assessments. 2002 failed to which, adjusted complaint value is ac- 1. The before the trial court was each individual importance actually complaint. cording its relative in the the second amended brief, p. 7. whole.” dividing by the mean "PRDs are determined alleged juris- 1.0 are to be indicative ratio of sales to assessed values in the 3.PRDs above mean, average regressivity. weighted of tax diction

189 However, Fayette variety of constitutional claims limited Jordan Appeals, Board Assessment 782 circumstances. (Pa.Cmwlth.2001), 642 A.2d this Court ad divergence may be The reason for this challenge brought group dressed perceived that this Court while taxpayers sought who to have a common that an admin- Supreme recognized pleas equity jurisdiction court exercise agency istrative should be allowed exer- a county’s over their claim that fact-finder and specialized cise its role rights methods violated their under apply expertise,” “its administrative Bor- uniformity In concluding clause. Tree, 281, ough Green 459 Pa. at must taxpayers those exhaust their statu when, despite A.2d at there are times tory remedy, guided by we were Su the absence of a facial constitutional chal- preme Borough Court’s statements in lenge, the balance between an administra- Property Green Tree v. Board Assess agency’s expertise tive exercise of its ments, (1974), A.2d ability complete its to offer redress for an wherein that Court noted the distinction alleged wrong egregious constitutional taxing between frontal on attacks statutes proceeding dimension falls in favor of that challenge those the methods used equity. implement taxing authority. pur to The pose requiring compliance of strict with Thus, Taxpayers rely upon, and the statutory remedy the is to ensure that the considered, trial court several such cases upon “foundation which the administrative permitted in to which courts were exercise process was founded” is not undermined. jurisdiction equity despite the existence of Jordan, (quoting 782 A.2d at 646 Chenan statutory remedy, a even where the unifor go Valley Osteopathic Hospital Depart v. mity challenge facial present did a Health, 39, 47, ment 499 Pa. 451 A.2d of attack. in constitutional These cases hold (1982)). 434, 438 “The premature inter general party that a must establish dis ruption of the process administrative re in application taxing crimination agency’s stricts the opportunity develop to statute, if statutory remedy, and that the record, an adequate factual limits the any, inadequate. is agency the exercise of expertise its impedes the development of a cohesive requirement, Tax As to the first also, body of law in that area.” Id. See payers rely part upon this deci Court’s Commonwealth, Annenberg v. 686 A.2d in City sion Lancaster v. Lancaster of (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). 1380 476, 289, County, 143 599 A.2d Pa.Cmwlth. (1991),petition appeal 294 allowance case, In correctly this the trial court of for (1992). denied, 634, 530 Pa. 606 A.2d 903 concluded that present- are not they have a Taxpayers assert raised ing underlying a frontal attack on the tax- albeit, question, constitutional substantial statute, Jordan, rather, ing but as in chal- challenge one that involves a constitutional lenging assessment methods. application taxing provisions— to the of The trial court then recognized de- has violated the Uniformi spite Borough the direction of Green of ty Pennsylvania Tree, Clause of the Constitution distinguishing facial constitutional In or through system its of assessment. challenges from challenges constitutional a satisfy requirement der to this first application taxing provision, to the of a this tax question, substantial constitutional approved Court has nevertheless of courts jurisdiction statutory must show that a or ad exercising equity payer over unifor- mity challenges involving clause latter ministrative violates the scheme Uniformi- proper- of certain of those satisfy ciation factors

ty taxing A scheme will Clause. ties, uniformity require- if ... requirements of the Clause there violated VIII, “a reasonable distinction and differ- Article Section 1 of the exists ment of taxpayers Id., suffi- ence between classes of Pennsylvania Constitution.” 599 A.2d tax treatment.” justify cient to different at 299. The Court concluded that Armco, Inc., 100 Pa. Appeal Id. countywide a de facto method constituted 452, 326, (1986), Cmwlth. reassessment, adequate and that no statu- denied, petitions appeal allowance tory remedy countywide for a (1987), 533 A.2d 714 one having noted that existed. Court matters, alleged “In tax vio Court stated: larger question of the court decide the equal protection lations of the clause and constitutionality countywide assess- analyzed uniformity clause are each individual requiring ment rather manner; taxpayer alleging same a more taxpayer appeal provided to an file rights a tax administration of violates its taxpay- efficient method of review for both uniformly with others of its be taxed ers and the courts. deliberate, pur- class must demonstrate a similar conclusion The Court reached poseful application in the discrimination County Board Dauphin Harrisburg safeguards the tax before constitutional (Pa. 677 A.2d 350 Appeals, Assessment Although the are violated.” use Cmwlth.1996), allowance petition “purposeful” words “deliberate” and seem denied, Pa. 693 A.2d 590 appeal culpa- some level of intentional indicate (1997), held that the Court where early bility required, decision designed program, reassessment Pennsylvania Supreme suggests houses rehabilitated to reassess certain requirement simply that that is met when City Harris of the of Shipoke the section system “part sys- of a challenged program, a ratio constituted burg using tematic, deliberate method of enforcement countywide facto reassessment. Simi de laws, or of the tax and not mere errors County larly, Township Millcreek of oversights.” Co. v. Fisher Controls Com Erie, (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), pe 1095 A.2d 119, 127, monwealth, 476 Pa. 381 A.2d — denied, appeal tition allowance of for (1977). 1253, 1257 — - (No. -, Pa. A.2d 547 W.D. whether, then question The becomes Dkt, 1998, 5,1999), also Alloc. filed March in Tax- upon the factual averments based county failed to con involved a that had that payers’ complaint, they have shown long county-wide for a duct a reassessment methods have a discriminato- time, resulting inequities in period of Lancaster, ry City In the Coun- effect. of The among properties’ assessed values. full ty sought to avoid a re-assessment only aspect this recognized not Court county by selecting certain ar- the entire case, persuasive also found but last time of a eas to be re-assessed. The no findings that there were trial court’s ap- county-wide full re-assessment was valuation, nor uni- uniform standards before, in twenty-five years proximately for assessors to follow. procedure form conclude 1960. This Court stated: “We course, distinguish- are those cases law, Of County, in as a matter of Allegheny in that from this case able County’s taxing singling out ten of the County countywide reassess- conducted districts, utilizing in a different method Thus, we cannot ments in 2001 and 2002. in dis- properties on the those assessment any county-wide facto that de tricts, in conclude making unsubstantiated occurred, that or depre- reassessment has adjustments grade wholesale County sys- has created a lack uniformity by they alleging that were not that the failing countywide to conduct a designed deliberately operat- reassess- tem was or ment within a reasonable time order to produce any ed to inequities, or type non-uniformity avoid the that even- deliberately for groups singled were out tually occurs the passage of time. disparate County treatment. also distinguish seeks to the above-cited cases rely upon also Ackerman v. (Pa. by noting here were not County, Carbon Cmwlth.1997), deliberately out, petition singled that their assess- allowance denied, appeal 712 A.2d 287 ments were not the result of a coun- dated (1998), Court, where in adopting assessment, this and tywide and that the decision, trial affirming a court’s concluded method of assessment does not result in a that a failure to countywide institute a “pervasive inequity” or wholesale reassessment was found to have “created statutory remedy By cannot ap- address. intolerable and illegal dispari- manner, proaching the issue this limited among ties properties comparable val- we believe the trial court failed to consid- ue.” Interestingly, Ackerman involved not er, address, County and the fails to wheth- arising case from a request for relief in er the method the used resulted equity, but from the consolidation statu- above, discrimination. As mentioned tory appeals of some 600 homeowners. prohibited discrimination under the unifor- mity

The trial court in clause need not be deliberate in the present case con- sidered each of that disparate pur- these sense treatment is the light cases Taxpayers’ pertinent averments, rather, pose system; factual as noted Fisher, stated: Supreme opera- tive action is a discriminatory effect that complaint, [Taxpayers] do not from a

allege system, simple results rather than county-wide there are no pro- cedures and error or oversight. standards for establishing fair market value. [Taxpayers] do not Thus, we must consider whether allege that system the assessment was pleadings support a claim that the method- designed or deliberately operated to ology used had a discriminato- produce inequities. [Taxpayers] do not effect, Fisher, ry system- for as noted a allege any groups properties produces discriminatory atic method that deliberately were singled dispa- out for subject effect is also to under review contrary, rate treatment. To the [Tax- uniformity If clause. there is no such payers] only allege, as to as- effect, analysis our ends. If the sessment, that an system effect, discriminatory method does have a apparently designed was treat all to then we must consider whether the statu- properties (i.e., in the same fashion to tory remedy adequate address properties assess all at 100% of actual resulting inequities. value) fair market did achieve this significant percent result as to a of resi- Armco, Appeal at properties dential valued at less than that an this Court held assessment satis $50,000. requirements uniformity fies the of the Slip opinion at 26. taxing authority clause “where the assess property percentage es all at the same sought The trial court to distin value; guish a uni by looking application the above-cited cases to its actual of such averments, Taxpayers’ factual noting taxpayer form ratio assures each will be by more than 15% than of be over-assessed responsible pro for its- rata share held (85% $250,000 than greater valued government.” the burden of local houses substantially were of low cost sales which Taxpayers’ initial averments Some of incorrectly assessed were overvalued more and sales of appraisals that certified show 15%; only while 45% of the most than than the much lower similar homes were homes, substantially which were expensive fair market value.4 County-determined overvalued; incorrectly assessed were 55% countywide claim that the 2001 actually high homes were priced of these flawed it failed reassessment was because undervalued).” Complaint, paragraph 48. of proper- to include a substantial number developed computer in a mod- ty transfers that, if all saying without goes It Specifically, Taxpayers allege el. per same by the are overvalued properties County’s failure to include all transfers of burden, even with the tax centage, then $10,000 for less then skewed the properties de provide a would at least overvaluation assessment, causing over assessment of fair regardless of actual gree parity properties lower value and under assess- Thus, equally it seems value. market properties. Addi- higher ment of value results if assessment scheme clear tionally, Taxpayers contend reas- significantly depart values that assessed weight placed disproportionate sessment value, property such from true market factors as size and quantitative on such proportion their paying owners will not be also con- number of bedrooms. such tax Where ate share of the burden. dividing method of tend that the only segments certain departure affects 1,800 neigh- county approximately into owners, may be discrimination property divergence of contributed to the borhoods result. value actual fair market value to assessed neighborhoods.

in discrete stated Supreme As assessment, regard to the 2002 With Pa. Philadelphia, 518 City Leventhal v. compiled by Taxpayers point to sales data (1988): 1328, 1331 233, 239, 542 A.2d Pittsburgh Comptroller City far of classi- So as reasonableness City properties indicating that 58% purposes of taxa- fications made for their assessed more 15% above were concerned, Uniformity Clause tion is Among in 1992. homes price actual sale Pennsylvania of the Constitution of $50,000, 2,608 homes were valued below of the Unit- Equal Protection Clause actual val- more than 15% above assessed States, materia. Both pan ed stand ue,' under-assessed. only while 342 were clause, as equal protection federal “18,- analysis also showed that City’s statutes, and the state applied taxing 48,610 (during validated sales 333 out uniformity of requirement constitutional 2000, 1999, quarters three of and the first 2001) “upon the same class of sub- of taxation were over-or under assessed 1) (Pa. Const.Art.VIII, § mandate jects” valued at less more than 15%. Houses taxing in a scheme $50,000 likely to that classification almost twice as were $57,100 Similarly, Taxpayer Rum- example, taxpayer property in 2002. 4. Beattie’s For 2001, $47,600, years and challenged at while four her assessment in was assessed mel earlier, away alleges to doors she hearing a house two val- officer a market obtained from a $30,000. only for be in better condition sold $17,500, appraisal; private ue based on of performed Taxpayer appraisal had an Ellis however, County property at assessed her the obtaining value of year, a market last $68,700. $38,000, value at the assessed the but case, However, have a if rational basis. either we assume even purposes classification for tax valid Taxpayers is that have a substantial raised when it upon legitimate “is based some question, constitutional and established a pro- distinction between the classes that effect, discriminatory we still must consid vides a non-arbitrary and ‘reasonable adequacy statutory remedy. er the just’ and for the treat- basis different Here have not asserted that the legiti- ment.” there Where exists no applying disparate is ratios to ac classes, mate distinction between the they recognize tual value. While this dis thus, and tax imposes the scheme sub- tinction, that Taxpayers assert “Individual stantially tax unequal upon per- burdens the can appeals from reassessment at most similarly situated, sons the tax otherwise to a property’s reduce an over-assessment is unconstitutional. charges actual value. Since tax are a (Citations omitted.) of product millage, and assessment millage and is based on total assessed val This Court has noted that “ab properties county] ue [of all solute equality perfect uniformity of propor under-assessment a substantial required.” taxation are not Hospital Lee tion homes of will cause lower valued County, v. Cambria 162 Pa.Cmwlth. overcharged to be homeowners taxes 344, 351, petition A.2d allowance if their even individual assessment has denied, appeal Pa. 648 A.2d 791 been Complaint, paragraph corrected.” (1994). uniformity requires clause They appeal assert that an of an “only uniformity substantial approxi concern, assessment could not address equality.” mate Id. As in Appeal stated they power challenge because have no Armco, uniformity is achieved when the property another owner’s assessment. taxing authority all assesses at property However, taxpayer may while a not chal percentage same of its actual value. lenge taxing authority’s assessment of There then the possibility exists even property another under owner’s assess if authority the taxing complies with ment, Taxpayers have not asserted that requirement percentage that same they not may request the Board of Assess applies value properties to all pur for the Appeals millage ment to recalculate the pose determining inequities tax liability, applying for the purpose accurate may if arise valuation is im performed millage solely appeals. to their This properly. may The result be the same brings back to point Borough us such a if taxing authority scenario as agencies Green Tree —that those that applied a percentage different value particular in a area expertise have should of the property, if the base which value on expertise be left to exercise evalu grounded is is not the ating claims this kind. have actual value and was determined in non alleged not that the Board cannot re-evalu By uniform manner. varying part millage ap ate the total in an assessment equation, part if not requiring applica ratio, peal, accordingly, persuad we are may tion of a uniform the result well process the statutory appeal ed that taxing authority if the be same as did As our apply inadequate. we noted decision catego different ratios to different circumstance, Annenberg, in at ries of In 686 A.2d properties. “[t]he either exper has people pay Appeals some will not Board of Assessment pro-rata their in tax applying share the tax Such a can tise the laws Com burden. result being discriminatory. and in the dealing be characterized as monwealth with kinds 194 subject jurisdiction not matter to con- complicated questions of valuation and of have ” § the

liability exemption.... taxpayers 1983 action absent or sider ju- and exhaustion their administrative Additionally, challenge a in similar tax Id., 715 A.2d at 552. dicial remedies.” (rather eq- appeal the administrative recently confirmed This conclusion was uitable) in process Ackerman demon- in con- this Court Jordan. We therefore statutory remedy can ac- strates that in that trial court did not err clude a commodate multitude tax § dismissing action. Taxpayers’ 1983 above, noted case involved issues. As that appeal a consolidated 600 homeowners 3.Noncompliance with challenged who Carbon assess- Ordinance PRDs ments, asserting that violated the they Taxpayers claimed that the Coun Uniformity The trial court exam- Clause. ty imposed to with comply failed standards disparity, ined indicators of tax various Standards Assessment Dispersion, such statis- as Coefficients pres Practices This issue Ordinance. tical tool that determine the reliabili- helps law question as to whether ents approach ty of assessments. While the assessment satisfies the ordinance. We may Taxpayers way take here one be why see no reason this issue cannot be uniformity, demonstrating lack of Acker- Ac appeal addressed an to Board. man illustrates that there are methods of cordingly, we conclude that the trial court demonstrating non-uniformity to ad- Taxpayers’ com dismissing did not err in trial agency ministrative courts in this plaint regard. appeal statutory process on that may complaint. Taxpayers address their Challenge 4.Mootness claim that the Board cannot consider rele- to 2001 Assessment millage vant evidence as to effect court, footnote, The trial in a stat assessment, they of over or under but do allegations ed it not that would address any point regulations not rules or that complaint the Coun Taxpayers’ regarding consideration preclude would the Board’s ty’s countywide 2001 reassessment. Accordingly, of such we can- information. upon decision in Is trial court relied our not that have conclude satisfied A.2d County, v. 703 Montgomery raelit adequate their burden to that no establish (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), allow petition 722 for remedy legal exists. denied, appeal 555 Pa. ance of 2.§ 1983 Claim (1998), for the proposition A.2d 184 may not be to ob class action maintained also claim that trial resulting taxes from an tain a refund of dismissing claim court erred their under However, for the assessment. above, improper § As noted Tax U.S.C. concerning expressed above same reasons the statu payers have established that reassessment, we con countywide the 2002 tory remedy inadequate to address their trial court did not err clude injury. alleged Murtagh Berks from dismissing Taxpayers’ arising claims (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), County, countywide the 2001 re-assessment. denied, petition appeal allowance of (1999), 656, 734 A.2d 863 this court on we affirm the foregoing, Based “[bjecause Pennsylvania’s concluded court’s trial decision. process challenging tax administrative in the Judge PELLEGRINI concurs provides taxpayers assessments with remedy, the trial court did result. adequate state

ORDER NOW, 2004,

AND 15th day April

the order of the of Common Pleas of

Allegheny County affirmed.

Concurring Dissenting Opinion

Judge FRIEDMAN.

I agree majority with the that the Court Common Pleas of Allegheny

(trial court) properly dismissed the section Beattie,

1983 claim filed Henrietta Ger- Ellis, Rummel, Walls,

trude Karen Sandra

Kenneth Valley Pierce and Mon Unem-

ployed (together, Taxpayers) Committee

against Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Executive, Roddey,

James its Chief

Manatron, However, Inc. many reasons stated in Kowenhoven v. (Pa.Cmwlth.2004)

Allegheny, 847 A.2d 172

(Friedman, J., concurring dissenting), do agree

I properly trial court Taxpayers’ equitable

dismissed claims on

grounds that Taxpayers adequate have an

legal remedy.

CENTRAL DAUPHIN SCHOOL

DISTRICT, Petitioner IN-

FOUNDING COALITION of the SCHOOL,

FINITY CHARTER

Respondent. Court of Pennsylvania.

Commonwealth

Argued Dec. 2003. April

Decided

Case Details

Case Name: Beattie v. Allegheny County

Court Name: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Apr 15, 2004

Citation: 847 A.2d 185

Court Abbreviation: Pa. Commw. Ct.