IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Cole Fasnacht and :

Courtney Fasnacht, his wife, : No. 356 C.D. 2016

: Submitted: October 21, 2016

Appellants :

:

v. :

:

Board of Property Assessment :

Appeals of Schuylkill County :

:

v. :

:

Schuylkill County, South Manheim :

Township, and Schuylkill Haven :

Area School District :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge1

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge2

OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: March 9, 2017

Cole Fasnacht and Courtney Fasnacht, his wife, (together, Taxpayers) 

appeal from the February 9, 2016 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill 

County (trial court) that denied and dismissed their tax assessment appeal. We 

affirm.

Taxpayers purchased property (Property) at 348 Bernie Drive in 

Schuylkill County, Tax Identification No. 28-2-28.1, on November 6, 2013, for 

 

1

This Opinion was assigned to the authoring Judge on December 16, 2016.

2

This decision was reached before the conclusion of Senior Judge Friedman’s service with 

this Court
2

$175,000. On June 5, 2015, the County Tax Assessment Office (County) notified 

Taxpayers of a change in the Property’s assessment from $33,540 to $66,120. 

Taxpayers appealed the assessment change to the County Board of Assessment 

Appeals, which denied their request to change the assessment. Thereafter, Taxpayers 

appealed to the trial court, contending that the change of assessed value was an 

impermissible spot reassessment.3

At a hearing before the trial court on December 9, 2015, the County

introduced its assessment card for the Property, which showed a fair market value of

$132,244 and an assessed value of $66,120. The County also introduced the 

testimony of field appraiser Debra Detweiler, a Certified Pennsylvania Evaluator 

licensed to perform field appraisals. Detweiler testified that she has been a field 

appraiser for the County since 2003 and is assigned to thirteen or fourteen different 

municipalities in the County. She explained that, as a field appraiser, she receives 

building permits from various municipalities, and she is responsible to check on 

properties and adjust assessments for those properties with new construction or 

improvements. She added that the law does address the number of visits an assessor 

must make each year but said that, as a general rule, County field appraisers go to 

their designated areas twice a year; they check on permits that have been issued and 

drive the districts looking for other construction. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 4a-6a, 

11a, 22a, 37a-38a. 

 

3

Section 8843 of the Consolidated County Assessment Law, 53 Pa.C.S. §8843, prohibits the 

county assessment office from engaging in the practice of spot reassessment. “Spot reassessment” 

means the reassessment of a property that is not conducted as part of countywide revised 

reassessment and that creates, sustains, or increases disproportionality among properties’ assessed 

values. Radecke v. York County Board of Assessment Appeals, 798 A.2d 265, 267 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2002).
3

Detweiler testified that she received a building permit for a patio 

enclosure issued for the Property on November 23, 2010. She stated that she visited 

the Property on January 5, 2011, and observed that construction had begun. She said 

that she visited the Property several times after January 2011, including occasions 

after the date of Taxpayers’ purchase of the Property in November 2013. She stated 

that while she monitored the progress of work on the patio enclosure, she also 

observed construction that was not included on the permit. More specifically, 

Detweiler testified that the changes she observed at the Property included an addition 

to the rear of the home, increasing the living area of the second floor; a two-story 

attached garage with living area above that as well; and an above-ground pool or hot

tub, which held no value for assessment purposes but was also something new. She 

also introduced photographs taken in August 1995 and September 2015 reflecting 

those changes. Detweiler acknowledged that she did not document every visit to the 

Property, but she said that her file notes reflect that the two-car garage with living 

area above was still under construction on May 9, 2014. R.R. at 9a-16a, 24a-26a.

On April 20, 2015, Detweiler determined that the construction was 

complete and issued a Change of Assessment notice. She explained that it is the 

practice of the County that a revised assessment based on an improvement is not done 

until the construction is finished. She said that on her earlier visits, she had observed 

lumber stacked up outside and/or people working on the home, whereas on that date 

she saw no activity and noticed that there were curtains in the living area above the 

garage. Detweiler testified that, relying on her expertise and experience, she 

concluded that the improvements on the Property were completed. She stated that the 

Property’s assessment was revised based on information obtained in the field and 

entered into “our governed system downstairs,” adding that the calculation of the new 
4

assessed value from $33,540 to $66,120 was not a new appraisal, but was 

“predetermined in our system from the 1995 reassessment.” R.R. at 16a-19a. 

On cross-examination, Detweiler acknowledged that she could not be 

certain of the exact date that the work was finished. She testified that she never saw 

contractors at the Property because the former owners were doing the construction 

themselves beginning in January 2011. She also said that she was not aware that the 

ownership of the Property had changed, and she was using a working file that showed 

Vernon and Marianne Blankenhorn, and not Taxpayers, as the owners. She stated 

that on April 20, 2015, she noticed that the entire outside of the Property had been 

cleaned up and there was no sign of ongoing construction.

Finally, Detweiler testified that, other than the 30-month exemption for 

interim assessments for new construction, Section 8813 of the Consolidated County 

Assessment Law (Law), 53 Pa.C.S. §8813, the Law does not specify time limits for 

revising assessments based on construction. However, Detweiler repeated that the 

County’s practice is to change an assessment when the County determines that 

construction is completed and that in this case, she initiated the change as soon as she 

made that determination. R.R. at 33a, 38a. 

Cole Fasnacht testified that the previous owners of the Property obtained 

the building permit and performed the renovations and that he did not perform any 

construction on the Property after his purchase in November 2013. Asked about the 

materials Detweiler observed in 2014, Fasnacht said that he had no idea what she 

saw, but that he was landscaping. He said that he also re-stoned the driveway, but he 

was told he did not need a permit for that. He stated that no other changes were made 

to the Property subsequent to Taxpayers’ purchase, including installation of the hot 

tub. R.R. at 46a-54a. 
5

The trial court noted that under Section 8817(a) of the Law, 53 Pa.C.S. 

§8817(a), changes to assessments resulting from improvements or new construction 

shall not be construed to be illegal spot assessments. The trial court further observed 

that there is no requirement for a property owner to inform the assessment office that 

improvements to the property are complete. The trial court determined that 

Detweiler’s credible testimony established that: she was aware of ongoing 

construction at the Property; she monitored the construction on numerous occasions; 

and she initiated a change to the assessment at the time she reasonably determined, 

based on her experience and expertise as a field appraiser, that construction was 

finally completed.

4

 In light of these facts, the trial court concluded that the 

reassessment was not made at an arbitrary time in the future and was not an 

impermissible spot reassessment. Accordingly, the trial court denied Taxpayers’ 

appeal. 

On appeal to this Court,

5 Taxpayers argue that the Property’s 

reassessment due to improvements made before they purchased the Property 

constitutes impermissible spot reassessment. We disagree.

Section 8817 of the Law, 53 Pa.C.S. §8817 (emphasis added), states:

(a) General rule. - In addition to other authorization 

provided in this chapter, the assessors may change the 

assessed valuation on real property when a parcel of land is 

subdivided into smaller parcels or when improvements are 

 

4 As factfinder, the trial court has exclusive province over questions of witness credibility 

and evidentiary weight. In Re: Penn Delco School District, 903 A.2d 600, 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). 

Consequently, “this Court is prohibited from making contrary credibility determinations or 

reweighing the evidence in order to reach an opposite result.” Id.

 

5 Our scope of review in a tax assessment appeal is limited to determining whether the trial 

court abused its discretion or committed an error of law, or whether its decision is supported by 

substantial evidence. Radecke, 798 A.2d at 266.
6

made to real property or existing improvements are 

removed from real property or are destroyed. The recording 

of a subdivision plan shall not constitute grounds for 

assessment increases until lots are sold or improvements are 

installed. The painting of a building or the normal regular 

repairs to a building aggregating $2,500 or less in value 

annually shall not be deemed cause for a change in 

valuation.

(b) Construction. - A change in the assessed valuation on 

real property authorized by this section shall not be 

construed as a spot reassessment under section 8843 

(relating to spot reassessment).

Taxpayers acknowledge that under Section 8817(a) of the Law,

assessors may change the assessed valuation on real property when improvements are 

made to real property and that Section 8817(b) of the Law specifically provides that a 

“change in the assessed valuation on real property authorized by this section shall not 

be construed as a spot reassessment . . . .” 53 Pa.C.S. §8817(b). However, Taxpayers 

maintain that the Law is well-settled that “the assessment of improvements must take 

place when the improvements are made and not at some arbitrary time in the future, 

or a board of assessment will be guilty of spot assessment.” Shenandoah Mobile Co. 

v. Dauphin County Board of Assessment Appeals, 869 A.2d 562, 565 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2005) (emphasis added).

Taxpayers argue that the previous owners obtained a building permit in 

2010, and that all of the improvements to the Property were made before Taxpayers 

purchased the Property in 2013. Taxpayers argue that the County did not reassess the

Property until June 2015, which was nineteen months after they purchased the 

Property. Relying on Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC v. Fayette County Board of 

Assessment Appeals, 116 A.3d 1176, 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), Taxpayers argue that 

the County unreasonably delayed imposition of the reassessment, rendering it invalid.
7

In Duke Energy, the property owner acquired 400 acres of property in 

2001 and 2002, and created a separate 60-acre tract on which the owner proposed to 

operate a gas-fired electric-generating station. The owner applied for and received a 

real estate tax abatement that ran on the 60 acres from 2001 through 2011. In the fall 

of 2003, the property owner completed construction of the electric generating station. 

Although the county was notified and made aware of the improvement, the county 

chose not to immediately reassess the property until the tax-abatement status was set 

to expire. After the tax abatement expired eight years later in 2011, the county 

reassessed the property. The county board of assessment appeals denied the property 

owner’s appeal, as did the trial court. 

On further appeal, this Court concluded that although it may have been 

reasonable for the county to reassess the property once the tax abatement expired, the 

Law requires reassessment upon completion of improvements. We observed that the 

county did not mistakenly fail to assess the property but, instead, intentionally chose

to postpone the assessment until the tax abatement expired. Because the county did 

not comply with the Law and reassess the property at the time the improvements were 

completed, we held in Duke Energy that the county engaged in spot reassessment. Id.

In contrast to those facts, the trial court credited Detweiler’s testimony

that she checked on the construction at the Property on a number of occasions and, in 

her opinion, the construction began in 2011 and continued beyond her visit in May 

2014. Importantly, the trial court made no finding as to when the construction was 

actually completed. However, the trial court found that Detweiler reasonably

concluded that the construction was finally completed when she visited the property 

in April 2015. There is no indication that the County intentionally or negligently 

delayed applying the value of the improvements to the Property’s reassessment. 
8

Indeed, Taxpayers’ argument relies solely on the passage of time; they

do not address Detweiler’s testimony; they do not argue that the Law requires field 

assessors to view properties more frequently or that the timing of the field appraiser’s 

visits in this case was arbitrary. In contrast to the facts in Duke Energy, Taxpayers do 

not contend that the County intentionally or negligently delayed the reassessment. 

We agree with the trial court’s determination that the reassessment of the 

Property was not made “at some arbitrary time in the future” and did not constitute 

impermissible spot reassessment. In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that the 

statutory scheme, insofar as it contains no specific requirements governing the timing 

of appraisal visits or timelines for applying the value of improvements to a property’s 

reassessment, may result in potentially painful surprises to unwary purchasers of 

property. Unfortunately, while we are not unsympathetic, it is not within the power 

of this Court to fashion a remedy for such occurrences. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

___________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Cole Fasnacht and :

Courtney Fasnacht, his wife, : No. 356 C.D. 2016

: 

Appellants :

:

v. :

:

Board of Property Assessment :

Appeals of Schuylkill County :

:

v. :

:

Schuylkill County, South Manheim :

Township, and Schuylkill Haven :

Area School District :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9

th day of March, 2017, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, dated February 9, 2016, is affirmed.

___________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
RSF - 1 -

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Cole Fasnacht and :

Courtney Fasnacht, his wife, : No. 356 C.D. 2016

: Submitted: October 21, 2016

Appellants :

:

v. :

:

Board of Property Assessment :

Appeals of Schuylkill County :

:

v. :

:

Schuylkill County, South Manheim :

Township, and Schuylkill Haven :

Area School District :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

DISSENTING OPINION

BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: March 9, 2017

Because the Law requires reassessment upon completion of

the improvements and the record is inadequate for this court to determine

when improvements to the Property were completed, I respectfully dissent

and would vacate the trial court’s order and remand for an additional hearing.

Debra Detweiler testified that she obtained and reviewed a 2010

permit issued to Vernon and Marianne Blankenhorn to enclose a patio on the

Property. (N.T., 12/9/15, at 5.) Detweiler agreed that building permits are

generally valid for one year. (Id. at 31.) Detweiler testified that she first visited
RSF - 2 -

the Property on January 5, 2011, and the homeowners had just started

construction on the rear of the home, which they were doing themselves. (Id. at

9, 35.) Detweiler further testified that she determined that construction was

completed on April 20, 2015, because there was no lumber stacked outside,

1

no

activity outside, and curtains hung in the living area above the garage. (Id. at 11-

12.) Detweiler testified that she was not aware that the Property had changed

ownership and that construction on the house could have been completed during

one of her visits in 2013 or 2014. (Id. at 29-30, 33, 35, 39.) In fact, Detweiler 

acknowledged that there was no way for her to know when construction was

completed. (Id. at 38-39.) She just made the determination that the construction

was completed upon her visit in 2015. (Id. at 39.)

Cole Fasnacht testified, without contradiction, that the previous

owners obtained a building permit and constructed a garage and addition to the

Property. (Id. at 47.) After purchasing the Property on November 6, 2013,

Fasnacht did not perform any construction on the Property, only making

cosmetic repairs and changes to the landscaping. (Id.) Additionally, he testified

that before he purchased the Property curtains hung in the living area above the 

garage. (Id. at 48.) Fasnacht stated that he was told by bank employees that

taxes on the Property would not increase once the Property was titled in his

name. (Id. at 52.)

 

1 Detweiler testified that she did not know if the lumber she saw on a previous occasion

was being used for the interior of the garage or for decking purposes. (N.T., 12/9/15, at 33.)
RSF - 3 -

None of the testimony or evidence presented to the trial court

answers the question of when improvements to the Property were completed. 

The majority recognizes this deficiency stating “[i]mportantly, the trial court

made no finding as to when the construction was actually completed.” (Maj.

Op. at 7 (emphasis added).) However, the Law requires reassessment upon

completion of the improvements and not at some arbitrary point in time. Duke

Energy Fayette II, LLC v. Fayette County Board of Assessment Appeals, 116

A.3d 1176, 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). Thus, it must be determined when the

improvements were completed.

Moreover, although Detweiler introduced two photographs, one

taken in August 1995 and the other in September 2015, the photographs do

not depict the Property at the time the building permit was issued, during the

construction process, or at the time the construction was completed. 

Specifically, the first picture was taken eight years before the building permit

was issued and the most recent picture was taken approximately five months

after Detweiler determined that the construction was completed.

Detweiler’s credited testimony is insufficient for purposes of

determining when the construction on the Property was completed. Detweiler

changed the assessment when she “ believed” that the construction was

completed. (Trial Ct. Op. at 6.) However, Detweiler never definitively stated

when the construction was completed. She “believed” that construction was

complete in 2015 because she did not see workers and saw curtains hanging on

the windows. (N.T., 12/9/15, at 11-12.) However, the only time Detweiler saw
RSF - 4 -

workers was during her initial 2 0 1 0 visit. (Id. at 30, 33.) Additionally,

Detweiler testified that “[t]here very well could have been” curtains on the

windows before April 2015; she could not recall. (Id. at 35.) Detweiler’s

stated “belief” is insufficient for purposes of determining when the construction

on the Property was completed.

Additionally, because the building permit was issued in 2010, and

building permits are generally valid for only one year, I submit that

reassessment five years later can constitute an “arbitrary time in the future.”

(Maj. Op. at 8.)

For the foregoing reasons, I would vacate the trial court's order and

remand for a supplemental hearing to determine when the improvements to the

Property were completed.

___________________________________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge