Court Opinion

ID: 9384605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 14:07:55.103283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:54.998729
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Chester Upland School District and  :
Chichester School District,         :
                  Appellants        :
                                    :
            v.                      :
                                    :
Delaware County Board of Assessment :          No. 103 C.D. 2022
Appeals and County of Delaware      :          Argued: March 7, 2023

BEFORE:     HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
            HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
            HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                           FILED: April 4, 2023

            The Chester Upland School District and Chichester School District
(collectively, School Districts) appeal from the Delaware County (County) Common
Pleas Court’s (trial court) January 6, 2022 order sustaining the County Board of
Assessment Appeals’ (Board) preliminary objections (Preliminary Objections) to
the School Districts’ amended complaint (Amended Complaint), and dismissing the
Amended Complaint with prejudice. The issue before this Court is whether the trial
court erred and/or abused its discretion by dismissing the Amended Complaint with
prejudice. After review, this Court affirms.
            On March 25, 2021, the School Districts filed a declaratory judgment
action. On May 10, 2021, the Board filed preliminary objections to the School
Districts’ complaint and the County joined therein.
               On May 11, 2021, the School Districts filed the Amended Complaint
seeking a judicial determination pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act1 that the
Board should be prohibited from actively participating in all pending cases involving
the School Districts’ appeals from the Board’s decisions regarding either a
property’s value or seeking to revoke a property’s real estate tax exemption.
Therein, the School Districts averred they had filed multiple cases in the trial court
involving appeals from 2020 Board decisions concerning either a property’s
assessment or seeking to revoke a property’s real estate tax exemption (Appeals).
The School Districts stated that they named the Board as a Respondent in the
Appeals pursuant to County Civil Procedure Rule 30.2 In addition, the School
Districts declared that thereafter the Board intervened and its solicitor entered an
appearance. The School Districts further alleged that in instances when the School
Districts filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Permit Discovery the Board objected.
The School Districts contended that upholding the Board’s objections would
substantially interfere with their preparation for the respective trials. Moreover, the
School Districts averred that the Board has no actual interest in the outcome of any
of the Appeals.
               The Board filed its Preliminary Objections to the School Districts’
Amended Complaint on June 1, 2021, and the County again joined. Therein, the
Board alleged that the School Districts had failed to state a claim upon which relief

       1
        42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7531-7541.
       2
         County Civil Procedure Rule 30(c), which pertains to appeals from real estate
assessments, mandates:
               The petitioner shall file with the petition a certification that service
               in conformity with [Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure
               (]Pa.R.C[iv.]P.[)] 440 has been made upon the Board . . . and all
               taxing districts or property owners affected by the appeal. A copy
               of this certification shall also be filed with the Court Administrator.
Rule *30(c); https://www.delcopa.gov/courts/localrules/CivilRules.pdf (last visited Apr. 3, 2023).
                                                  2
can be granted because the Consolidated County Assessment Law3 (Assessment
Law) specifically provides that the Board has the power and duty to participate in
all appeals challenging the Board’s decisions. The School Districts opposed the
Preliminary Objections. By January 14, 2022 order, the trial court sustained the
Preliminary Objections and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. The
School Districts appealed to this Court.4
                 The School Districts contend that the trial court erred by sustaining the
Board’s Preliminary Objections because its ruling was based on its erroneous
interpretation that Section 8855 of the Assessment Law, 53 Pa.C.S. § 8855, which
confers on a “taxing district” the right to file an appeal from a Board decision, should
be construed to treat such appeal in all ways (including the conduct of trial) as if the
appeal were taken by the “taxable person” pursuant to Section 8854 of the
Assessment Law, 53 Pa.C.S. § 8854.
                 Section 8854(a) of the Assessment Law provides, in relevant part:

                 (1) Following an appeal to the board [of assessment
                 (board)], any appellant, property owner or affected taxing
                 district may appeal the board’s decision to the court of

       3
           53 Pa.C.S. §§ 8801-8868.
       4
                 “Where a [court of common pleas] dismisses a complaint based on
                 preliminary objections, this Court’s review is limited to determining
                 whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of
                 discretion.” Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth.
                 2014). When considering preliminary objections, we must accept
                 as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint and
                 all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom. A preliminary
                 objection should be sustained only in cases when, based on the facts
                 pleaded, it is clear and free from doubt that the facts pleaded are
                 legally insufficient to establish a right to relief. Because a
                 preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer presents a question
                 of law, this Court’s standard of review of a court of common pleas’
                 decision to sustain a demurrer is de novo and the scope of review is
                 plenary.
Minor v. Kraynak, 155 A.3d 114, 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citations omitted).

                                                  3
                common pleas in the county in which the property is
                located in accordance with [Section 5571 of the Judicial
                Code,] 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(b)[5] (relating to appeals
                generally) and local rules of court.
                ....
                (6) In any appeal by a taxable person from an action by
                the board, the board shall have the power and duty to
                present a prima facie case in support of its assessment,
                to cross-examine witnesses, to discredit or impeach any
                evidence presented by the taxable person, to prosecute
                or defend an appeal in any appellate court and to take
                any other necessary steps to defend its valuation and
                assessment.

53 Pa.C.S. § 8854(1), (6) (emphasis added).
                Section 8855 of the Assessment Law states:

                A taxing district shall have the right to appeal any
                assessment within its jurisdiction in the same manner,
                subject to the same procedure and with like effect as if
                the appeal were taken by a taxable person with respect
                to the assessment, and, in addition, may take an appeal
                from any decision of the board or court of common pleas
                as though it had been a party to the proceedings before the
                board or court even though it was not a party in fact. A
                taxing district authority may intervene in any appeal by a
                taxable person under [S]ection 8854 [of the Assessment
                Law] (relating to appeals to court) as a matter of right.

53 Pa.C.S. § 8855 (emphasis added).

       5
           Section 5571(b) of the Judicial Code provides:
                Except as otherwise provided in subsections (a) and (c) and in
                [S]ection 5571.1 [of the Judicial Code] (relating to appeals from
                ordinances, resolutions, maps, etc.), an appeal from a tribunal or
                other government unit to a court or from a court to an appellate court
                must be commenced within 30 days after the entry of the order from
                which the appeal is taken, in the case of an interlocutory or final
                order.
42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(b).
                                                  4
              This Court has explained:

              A prima facie case is part of the burden shifting that takes
              place in a tax assessment appeal and requires assessment
              records to be introduced into evidence. Once presented,
              “the admission into evidence of the assessment records
              establishes a prima facie case for establishing the validity
              of the assessed value of a property.”

Songer v. Cameron Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 173 A.3d 1253, 1256 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2017) (quoting Craftmaster Mfg., Inc. v. Bradford Cnty. Bd. of Assessment
Appeals, 903 A.2d 620, 625 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)). “[T]he burden then shift[s] to
[the] [t]axpayers to produce sufficient competent, credible and relevant evidence to
overcome the assessment’s prima facie validity.” Songer, 173 A.3d at 1257. This
process applies whether a taxpayer or a taxing district appeals to the trial court. See,
e.g., Downingtown Area Sch. Dist. v. Chester Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals (Pa.
Cmwlth. No. 2182 C.D. 2014, filed Jan. 19, 2016); Norwegian Twp. v. Schuylkill
Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 74 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Wilson Sch.
Dist. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals of Berks Cnty. (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 2233 C.D. 2011,
filed Jan. 8, 2013).6
              The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recognized:

              Assessment appeals are designed to give interested parties,
              such as the property owner and any affected taxing
              districts, an opportunity to challenge the property’s
              assessment if they believe it to be in error, see [Section
              8844(b) of the Assessment Law,] 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 8844(b),
              8855, or nonuniform, see id. § 8854(a)(9)(ii); PA. CONST.
              art. VIII, § 1, or if they believe the assessment was reached
              improperly such as via spot reassessment.

       6
         This Court’s unreported memorandum opinions may be cited “for [their] persuasive
value, but not as a binding precedent.” Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal
Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). Downingtown and Wilson are cited for their
persuasive value.
                                            5
Appeal of Coatesville Area Sch. Dist., 244 A.3d 373, 382 (Pa. 2021) (emphasis
added).
             The School Districts here concede that, pursuant to Section 8854(6) of
the Assessment Law, the Board may fully participate “[i]n any appeal by a taxable
person[.]” 53 Pa.C.S. § 8854(6) (emphasis added). However, the School Districts
argue that the trial court erred because, notwithstanding that a taxing district’s right
to appeal shall be “in the same manner, subject to the same procedure and with like
effect as if the appeal were taken by a taxable person with respect to the assessment,”
there is no similar right to Board participation when a taxing district appeals
pursuant to Section 8855 of the Assessment Law. 53 Pa.C.S. § 8855.
             Specifically, the School Districts contend:

             The language of [Section] 8855 [of the Assessment Law]
             is clear and unambiguous. The title of [Section] 8855 [of
             the Assessment Law] is “Appeals by taxing districts.” The
             title of [Section] 8855 [of the Assessment Law] is limited
             to a taxing district’s right to file an appeal of a Board
             decision, and does not extend to the manner in which a
             trial would be conducted in the case of an appeal of a
             Board decision. The relevant words of [Section] 8855 [of
             the Assessment Law] state: “A taxing district shall have
             the right to appeal any assessment within its jurisdiction in
             the same manner, subject to the same procedure and with
             like effect as if the appeal [was] taken by a taxable person
             with respect to the assessment[.] . . .” The narrow
             purpose for [Section] 8855 [of the Assessment Law] is
             to make clear that the manner of filing an appeal by a
             taxing district, the procedure for filing an appeal by a
             taxing district, and the effect of filing an appeal by a
             taxing district, would be the same for a taxing district
             as for a taxable person.

School Districts’ Br. at 9-10 (bold emphasis added). Thus, the School Districts insist
that Section 8855 of the Assessment Law only applies to the method by which an

                                           6
appeal is filed and not the procedure by which the trial court tries an assessment
appeal.
             The School Districts further assert:

             The narrow purpose for [Section] 8855 [of the Assessment
             Law] is to make clear that the manner of filing an appeal
             by a taxing district, the procedure for filing an appeal by a
             taxing district, and the effect of filing an appeal by a taxing
             district, would be the same for a taxing district as for a
             taxable person.

School Districts’ Br. at 10 (emphasis added).
             The School Districts reason:

             [Section] 8854(a)(1) [of the Assessment Law] applies to
             appeals to court generally by any party aggrieved by a
             Board decision, whether a taxpayer, a taxing district or
             another other aggrieved party. Another subsection of the
             same statute (namely [Section] 8854(a)(6)) [of the
             Assessment Law] applies only to appeals of a Board
             decision by a taxpayer, and enables the Board to actively
             participate in the court case exclusively[:] (a) when the
             appeal was by a taxpayer[;] and (b) when the appeal relates
             to an assessment. Thus[,] the statute which enables
             appeals by either a taxpayer or a taxing district contains a
             separate subsection with language which expressly limits
             Board involvement in the court case to[:] (a) when the
             appeal was by a taxpayer[;] and (b) when the appeal relates
             to an assessment. If the [l]egislature had wanted to allow
             for active Board involvement in the court case when the
             appeal was by a taxing district (which is expressly enabled
             by [Section] 8854(a)(1)) [of the Assessment Law], the
             [l]egislature could have stated that expressly in [Section]
             8854(a)(6)[] [of the Assessment Law].              But the
             [l]egislature did not do so.

School Districts’ Br. at 11.
             The trial court rejected the School Districts’ position, ruling in its
opinion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1925(a) (Rule
1925(a) Opinion), that “[b]oards of [a]ssessment have explicit statutory authority in

                                           7
[Section 8854 of the Assessment Law] to participate in appeals from decisions of
the courts of common pleas and may take any other necessary steps to defend its
[sic] valuation and assessment.” Rule 1925(a) Op. at 8.
            The trial court reasoned:

            The School Districts would have the trial court order the
            Board to stand mute when a taxing district files an appeal;
            however, the Assessment Law requires the same
            procedures with like effect be applied regardless of
            whether the appeal was taken by a taxable person or a
            taxing district. [See] 53 Pa.C.S. § 8855. Therefore, if a
            taxing district is “subject to the same procedures” as an
            appeal taken by a taxable person and the Board is
            obligated to take other necessary steps to defend its
            valuation and assessment, the broad, blanket preclusion
            requested by the School Districts is impermissible. [53
            Pa.C.S. § 8855]. The treatment of a taxpayer as compared
            with a taxing district was examined by the []
            Commonwealth Court in the context of a school district’s
            and township’s challenge to an untimely decision from a
            [b]oard of [a]ssessment [a]ppeals in Richland Sch[ool]
            Dist[rict] v. C[ounty] of Cambria B[oard] of Assessment
            Appeals, 724 A.2d 988 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). In Richland,
            the Commonwealth Court stated the Assessment Law
            itself ensures the township and school district at issue were
            entitled to [the] same procedural due process rights as
            those afforded individual taxpayers in [the] tax assessment
            appeal.
            Additionally, the procedural requirements of an appeal
            require the Board’s active participation at trial. At trial,
            the initial burden is on the Board, regardless of whether
            the appeal was instituted by a taxpayer or by a taxing
            district. The Assessment Law imbues the Board with “the
            power and duty” to present a prima facie case in support
            of its assessment. 53 Pa.C.S. § 8854. The trial court is the
            ultimate finder of fact when performing a de novo review
            in a tax assessment appeal regarding real property, and it
            maintains exclusive province over matters involving the
            credibility of witnesses and the weight afforded the
            evidence. Expressway 95 Bus. Ctr., LP v. Bucks C[n]ty.
            Bd. of Assessment, 921 A.2d 70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007);

                                         8
             [Section 518.1 of the Act of May 22, 1933, P.L. 853, as
             amended, added by the Act of December 28, 1955, P.L.
             917,] 72 P.S. § 5020-518.1. [“]In a tax assessment appeal,
             the burden initially is on the Board, which it satisfies
             by presenting its assessment records into evidence.[”]
             [Expressway 95, 921 A.2d] at 76 (emphasis added).
             [“]Once presented, a prima facie case is established of the
             validity of the assessed value of [the] property. Deitch
             Co[.] v. B[d.] of Prop[.] Assessment, 209 A.2d 397 (Pa.
             1965); Koppel Steel Corp[.] v. B[d.] of Assessment
             Appeals of Beaver C[nty.], 849 A.2d 303 (Pa. Cmwlth.
             2004).[”] [Expressway 95, 921 A.2d at 76.]
Rule 1925(a) Op. at 9-10 (citations and footnotes omitted).
             The trial court concluded:
             In all cases[,] the Board is required to present a prima facie
             case in support of its assessment and to participate actively
             in appeals. Indeed, the statutes and caselaw cited above
             set[] forth the established order of proof in any assessment
             appeal. The Board is required to first establish a prima
             facie case by entering the assessment record into evidence.
             The [Board] will typically present the Assessment
             Manager for purposes of entering the assessment record as
             a prima facie case. This mandatory procedure establishes
             the assessment at issue and triggers the burden shift to the
             appellant - taxpayer or taxing district. To limit the Board’s
             participation in the appeal runs afoul of the evidentiary
             mandates pronounced by the Assessment Law. A blanket
             preclusion of the Board in any of the School Districts’
             appeals is, therefore, procedurally defective.

Rule 1925(a) Op. at 11-12 (citation omitted).
             Importantly, Section 8855 of the Assessment Law does not use the
word filing with respect to “appeal.” 53 Pa.C.S. § 8855. The General Assembly’s
use of the word “appeal” is much broader and refers to more than the filing of the
appeal. Id. Section 8854(a)(1) of the Assessment Law evidences this intent by
directing the process for all appeals from Board decisions:

             Following an appeal to the board, any appellant, property
             owner or affected taxing district may appeal the board’s

                                           9
               decision to the court of common pleas in the county in
               which the property is located in accordance with [Section
               5571(b) of the Judicial Code,] . . . and local rules of court.

53 Pa.C.S. § 8854(a)(1) (emphasis added). The procedural mandate in Section
8854(a)(1) of the Assessment Law is supplemented by Section 8854(a)(6) of the
Assessment Law’s general reference to the right to appeal and further directive that
the appeal shall proceed “in the same manner, subject to the same procedure and
with like effect as if the appeal were taken by a taxable person with respect to
the assessment[.]” 53 Pa.C.S. § 8855 (emphasis added). Given Section 8854(a)(1)
of the Assessment Law’s language directing the procedural process for the filing of
Board appeals, reading the language in Section 8854(a)(6) of the Assessment Law
to apply to filing only, would render such language superfluous. Further, nothing in
Section 8854(a)(6) of the Assessment Law’s language reflects a legislative intent to
limit its directive only to the filing of the appeal rather than to the entire appeal
process.7 For this reason, and those explained in the trial court’s well-reasoned Rule
1925(a) Opinion, this Court concludes that the trial court properly sustained the
Board’s Preliminary Objections and dismissed the School Districts’ Amended
Complaint.

       7
         The School Districts assert that “even if a court should construe the language of [Section
8855 of the Assessment Law] to allow active Board involvement in court cases for Board decision
appeals by a taxing district, [Section 8855 of the Assessment Law] expressly would limit such
involvement to appeals involving the assessment.” School Districts’ Br. at 14. This Court has
explained that
               [u]sually, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing a tax
               exemption under the rule that all property is subject to real estate
               taxes. Generally, the taxing authority’s admission of the tax
               assessment record into evidence establishes a prima facie case for
               taxability, and it is the taxpayer’s burden to overcome the validity
               of the tax assessment with competent, relevant evidence.
Norwegian Twp., 74 A.3d at 1128-29 (citation omitted). Thus, claims for exemption are part of
assessment cases, and “appeals involving . . . assessment[s]” include exemption claims. School
Districts’ Br. at 14. Accordingly, the School Districts’ argument fails.
                                                10
            For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                       _________________________________
                                       ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision in this matter.

                                         11
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Chester Upland School District and  :
Chichester School District,         :
                  Appellants        :
                                    :
            v.                      :
                                    :
Delaware County Board of Assessment :        No. 103 C.D. 2022
Appeals and County of Delaware      :

                                     ORDER

            AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2023, the Delaware County Common
Pleas Court’s January 6, 2022 order is affirmed.

                                      _________________________________
                                      ANNE E. COVEY, Judge