Court Opinion

ID: 9695131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:08:53.74608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:08.905352
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
MURPHY, J.,
which RAKER, J., Joins.
I agree with the Maryland Tax Court and the Circuit Court that (in the words of petitioner’s brief) (1) “the fact that a property was recently revalued under the normal in-cyele assessment process under [§ 8-104(b)] does not remove the property from the mandate of [§ 8-104(c)],” and (2) “once the renovations of the subject property were completed, the only issue was whether the existing assessment included the value associated with those renovations, not how the property came to the attention of the assessment office nor the extent of its knowledge of those renovations at the time of the previous assessment.” For those- reasons, in light of the Tax Court’s non-clearly erroneous factual finding “that the renovation of *679... the subject property[ ] added at least Fifty Thousand Dollars in the value in the calendar year 2003[,]” I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Judge RAKER has authorized me to state that she joins in this dissenting opinion.