Court Opinion

ID: 9956930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 14:11:13.11587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:59.349487
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

James B. Blanda                                :
and Suzanne R. Blanda,                         :
                             Appellants        :
                                               :
              v.                               :
                                               :
The Somerset County Board of                   :
Assessment Appeals, Somerset                   :
County, Township of Jefferson,                 :    No. 409 C.D. 2022
and Somerset Area School District              :    Submitted: January 5, 2024

BEFORE:       HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
              HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
              HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION BY
JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                                FILED: April 3, 2024

              James M. Blanda and Suzanne R. Blanda (the Blandas) appeal pro se
from the April 12, 2022 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County
(trial court).1 The trial court dismissed with prejudice the Blandas’ appeal from the
May 2019 denial by the Somerset County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) of
their appeal from the July 2018 assessment of their property for the 2019 tax year by
the Somerset County Assessment Office (Assessment Office). The assessment
effectively denied the Blandas’ request to reduce the assessed square footage of a
lodge on their property. Upon review, we reverse and remand to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

       1
          The Somerset County Board of Assessment Appeals, Somerset County, Township of
Jefferson, and the Somerset Area School District, Appellees herein, will be collectively referred
to as the “Taxing Authorities.”
                       I. Factual and Procedural Background
             The Blandas own 7.49 acres of land in Jefferson Township, Somerset
County. Blanda v. Somerset County Board of Assessment Appeals, 131 A.3d 560,
561 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (Blanda I). The property is improved with a house in which
the Blandas reside and a lodge that they rent out seasonally; the lodge is the focus of
this litigation. Id. This Court previously addressed the Blandas’ issues with the
assessment of their property in Blanda I.
             A May 2013 property assessment indicated that the lodge was a 2½-
story structure with 8 total rooms, 6 full bathrooms, 4,274 square feet of total living
space, and a market value of $89,880. Original Record (O.R.) #11 (Ex. D to the
Blandas’ Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the Trial Court). The Blandas requested a
Board hearing, after which the assessment was reduced to $85,910, based upon a
previous error in the number of bathrooms in the lodge. Blanda I, 131 A.3d at 561.
The Blandas filed a counseled appeal to the trial court, which held a hearing in
September 2014. Id.
             James Blanda’s trial testimony was summarized in Blanda I as follows:
             [T]he last improvements to the Property were done
             between 1995 and 2000, during a remodeling and
             rebuilding project. The Property was reassessed in 2008,
             and since then no improvements have been made to the
             Property. In 2013, a field worker from the Assessment
             Office came to the Property with a rental advertisement in
             hand. The rental advertisement listed the Property at 4,400
             square feet. The 2008 assessment card listed the Property
             at 2,206 square feet. Blanda testified that the discrepancy
             was advertising hyperbole, explaining that “when I said
             4[,]400 square feet, I included all of the cement pads
             where people could go outside. I included the deck spaces.
             I included all of the storage spaces. I included the hot tub
             area. I included the fire pit area. All of the places where
             people could congregate and enjoy the [P]roperty.”

                                            2
            Blanda stated that the lodge does not have 4,400 square
            feet of living space and that no improvements have been
            made to the Property since the last assessment in 2008.

131 A.3d at 561-62 (internal record citation omitted).
            The trial testimony of Mary Ann McKenzie (McKenzie), the
Assessment Office’s Chief Assessor, was summarized in Blanda I as follows:
            [T]he Assessment Office routinely checks real estate
            listings and rental listings on the internet to make sure
            descriptions of real estate located in the county match the
            assessed descriptions.        McKenzie stated that her
            employees discovered a discrepancy in the Blandas’
            property assessment while searching the internet.
            Specifically, a rental advertisement listed the lodge’s
            living space at 4,400 square feet, whereas the 2008
            assessment description listed its living space at 2,206
            square feet.

            After the discovery, the Assessment Office sent two field
            workers to measure the Blandas’ lodge. The field workers
            determined that: the lodge was not one story, as described
            in the 2008 assessment, but was two-and-one-half stories;
            the garage had been measured incorrectly; the number of
            bathrooms was incorrect; and the grading of D-plus was
            incorrect. The field workers gave McKenzie measurements
            of the lodge, from which McKenzie made a sketch of the
            lodge, entered the drawing into the computer, and
            determined the square footage and assessment figures.
            From this process, McKenzie determined that the lodge
            was 4,274 square feet. McKenzie further testified that she
            only included the lodge’s interior space and did not
            include the outside deck or the garage in her calculations.

131 A.3d at 561-62 & n.2. McKenzie added that in the 2013 assessment, the
property grade, which is based on construction type and materials, was changed from
D-plus to C-minus. Id. at 562 n.3 & 565.
            The trial testimony of Candace Jane Rizzo (Rizzo), the Assessment
Office’s Chief Assessor, was summarized in Blanda I as follows:

                                         3
               [S]he instructs her staff to look at newspapers, the internet,
               and real estate guides to check for discrepancies in
               assessment information. If a discrepancy is found, a field
               worker is sent to the property and corrections are made to
               the assessment. Rizzo stated that the correct assessment
               for the Property is $85,910. She further stated that the
               Assessment Office can correct an assessment if it contains
               a mistake.

131 A.3d at 562.
               The trial court found in Blanda I that the Taxing Authorities established
that the 2008 assessment of the lodge as 2,206 square feet was incorrect and that the
proper measurement was 4,274 square feet, based on the 2013 measurements taken
by the Assessment Office’s field workers and McKenzie’s computation of those
measurements. Trial Ct. Op. (from Blanda I litigation) at 4 & 7-8.2 The trial court
also concluded that the 2013 reassessment was properly conducted to correct the
erroneous square footage in the 2008 assessment and that the Assessment Office
could refer to publicly available rental advertisements to discover previous mistakes
in assessment records. Id. at 6-7. The trial court concluded that the Blandas’
evidence, which was limited to Mr. Blanda’s testimony, failed to establish that the
2013 assessment was incorrect. Id. at 4. The trial court stated:
               It is also clear from the evidence at trial that it was
               suggested to Mr. Blanda on various occasions to get an
               appraisal of the lodge done, and the county solicitor
               [(Daniel Rullo)] stated in closing that [he] “was even
               willing to continue the trial” to give Mr. Blanda an
               opportunity to bring an appraiser in to testify, but Mr.
               Blanda refused to get an appraisal done.

       2
        The trial court’s opinion in Blanda I was of record during that phase of this litigation and
was appended to the Taxing Authorities’ brief in this matter.

                                                 4
Id. at 4. The trial court therefore affirmed the Board’s assessment of $85,910, based
on 4,274 square feet for the lodge. Id. at 8. The Blandas filed a counseled appeal to
this Court.
               This Court concluded in Blanda I that the Assessment Office’s
adjustment of the lodge’s square footage from 2,206 square feet in 2008 to 4,274
square feet in 2013 corrected a previous error and was not an improper spot
assessment because the prior listing of the lodge as a one-story rather than a two-
and-one-half-story structure resulted in the total square footage being “grossly
miscalculated and understated.” Blanda I, 131 A.3d at 563-64. We also concluded
that the Assessment Office’s reference to the Blandas’ internet listing to remeasure
the lodge’s square footage was for the proper purpose of correcting the lodge’s
assessment information.         Id. at 565-66.        However, we remanded for further
disposition of a separate issue involving the grading of the property based on the
lodge’s construction type and materials. Id. at 565.3
               On April 15, 2016, after the matter returned to the trial court, the parties
filed a stipulation of settlement stating that as of 2014 and going forward, the
Property’s assessed value “shall be modified from $85,910 to $82,530 due to the
reclassification of the grade to the property of D+ from the previous C-
classification.” O.R. #10 (Ex. A to the Taxing Authorities’ Pre-Hearing Statement/
Brief to the Trial Court). The stipulation also stated that upon the trial court’s
acceptance, “the matter will be marked settled and discontinued.” Id. Notably, the
stipulation made no mention of the lodge’s square footage as a term or condition of

       3
          Then Judge, now President Judge Cohn Jubelirer agreed with the majority as to the
propriety of the Assessment Office’s changes to the square footage of the lodge, but dissented as
to the remand on the issue of construction grading, which is not at issue in this matter. Blanda I,
131 A.3d at 566-67 (Cohn Jubelirer, J., dissenting).

                                                5
settlement. Id. The trial court issued an order on the same date stating that the matter
was resolved as set forth in the stipulation. Id. The Blandas did not further appeal
Blanda I, and the matter was closed as of the date of the trial court’s order.
               In the Blandas’ view, however, the matter of the lodge’s square footage
was not resolved. On August 4, 2016, Solicitor Rullo sent a letter to the Blandas’
counsel noting that the Blandas had again sought to challenge the lodge’s assessed
square footage. O.R. #11 (Ex. E to the Blandas’ Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the
Trial Court). Solicitor Rullo stated that the matter had been fully and fairly litigated
in Blanda I and any further dispute by the Blandas concerning square footage would
likely be collaterally estopped. Id. Rullo stated that the Board would consider an
appeal of the property’s valuation and would schedule a hearing on the matter only
if the Blandas presented a formal appraisal rather than mere allegations. Id.
               On August 30, 2016, the Blandas formally appealed the property’s 2017
assessment, asserting that “new evidence in the form of professional drawings made
in March 2016 establish the total living area to be 2,448 square feet (more or less).
See attached drawings. The area is significantly less than the tax authority’s record.”
O.R. #10 (Ex. B to the Taxing Authorities’ Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the Trial
Court). Those drawings were created in March 2016 by EADS Architects and
indicated that the lodge was 2,276 square feet.4 O.R. #10 (Ex. C to the Taxing
Authorities’ Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the Trial Court). Although the drawings
were created in March 2016, they were not part of the post-remand April 2016

       4
         The EADS drawings stated 2,276 square feet for the lodge while the Blandas’ 2017 appeal
stated 2,448 square feet. The basis for the 172-square-foot discrepancy is unclear from the record.
In any event, the figures from the EADS drawings and the 2017 appeal are both significantly lower
than the Assessment Office’s figure of 4,274 square feet.

                                                6
stipulation which, as presented to the trial court, did not touch upon square footage,
an issue that was affirmed on appeal by this Court in Blanda I.
              On September 14, 2016, Solicitor Rullo issued a letter to the Blandas,5
which stated:
              My understanding is that you wanted to file another appeal
              to the assessment and revisit the same areas that were
              testified [to] before. We are only able to make corrections;
              consequently, unless you are able to establish an appraisal,
              the appeal would have already been resolved.

              As I understand it, you did submit a floor plan drawn by
              EADS that identified inside measurements. In order to
              fairly correct any mistakes, the Assessment Office has
              reviewed the EADS drawings and will be making
              adjustments using outside measurements and it is my
              understanding they are agreeing to take the lodge from a
              2-1/2 story dwelling with no finished attic to a 2-story
              dwelling with a part finished attic to allow for the two
              small bedrooms with a sink and toilet. They will further
              agree to change the first floor of what EADS has drawn as
              the garage area and change from ½ story above the garage
              to a one story living space. That brings the ground floor
              area to 1,086 square feet versus the inside measurements
              of 972 square feet [for] a difference of 114 square feet.
              The total living area would therefore be 3,125 square feet.
              It is my understanding the difference is that you are not
              counting the area above the garage as living space and the
              Assessment Office is doing that. Based upon the
              assessment’s determination, there is a difference of 163
              square feet, most likely due to the [EADS] drawings being
              inside measurements. The original assessment was 4,274
              square feet which was generally consistent with your
              advertisements.

       5
           Evidently, the Blandas were no longer represented by counsel when Solicitor Rullo sent
this letter. However, he noted that their former counsel was copied on the letter as a courtesy.

                                               7
             The tax effect of reducing the square footage is as follows:
             The assessed value will be decreased by $7,920 and the
             taxes will decrease as follows—
             County                     $105.81
             Township                    $49.26
             School District            $330.26
             Total                      $485.33
             I am being advised the Assessment Office sees no reason
             to revisit your property since the [EADS] drawing[s]
             represent[] inside measurements. They will make the
             internal changes and the Board will only hear any appeal
             you take if you dispute the square footage.

             I am instructing you that a visit will then be scheduled with
             the Assessment Office Data Collectors and the Sheriff
             Deputies because of past confrontations and then, and only
             then, will a hearing be scheduled on a subsequent appeal
             in which you must submit an appraisal. At the present
             time, we will not be scheduling an appeal until you make
             a determination as to whether you wish to appeal this
             reduced assessment based on the square footage
             information.

             You will receive this change of assessment notice
             effective for 2017. I wish to make it clear that the only
             way this matter will be scheduled before the [Board] is in
             the event you appeal this modification of the assessment
             which adjusts the square footage and we will require an
             appraisal to determine the adjustment in market value.

             I trust this clarifies the position.

O.R. #10 (Ex. D to the Taxing Authorities’ Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the Trial
Court).
             Subsequent to Solicitor Rullo’s September 2016 letter, the record
contains no indication of further activity until July 5, 2018, when Rizzo sent a letter
from the Assessment Office to the Blandas, which stated:

                                             8
             I received your phone call and spoke with my solicitor,
             Robert Boose regarding your recent inquiry to [sic] a
             refund and changing the square footage. Enclosed is a
             copy of a letter addressed to you September 14, 2016 [and]
             sent to you by then County Solicitor Daniel Rullo. Also
             enclosed is a copy of your assessment card which clearly
             shows that although your [EADS] drawings included only
             “inside measurements” we did in fact change the square
             footage to 3,125 on 9/12/16, reducing your assessed value
             by [$]7,920. There is no refund as the change that was
             made [was] when your drawings were submitted for the
             appeal filed for tax year 2017.

             In order to appeal enclosed is a new appeal form for 2019,
             which is due back by September 1, 2018, along with your
             appraisal. If no appraisal is submitted the [Board] will not
             be scheduling a hearing. No hearing was scheduled after
             Daniel Rullo wrote to you on 9-14-[16] explaining the
             changes that were made an[d] your options.

             Upon return of the enclosed appeal form AND an appraisal
             a hearing shall be scheduled.

O.R. #11 (Ex. H to the Blandas’ Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the Trial Court).
             On August 31, 2018, the Blandas formally appealed the 2019
assessment of the property to the Board. O.R. #10 (Ex. E to the Taxing Authorities’
Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the Trial Court). The Blandas stated on the appeal
form that they wished to correct errors on the property’s assessment “dating back to
the 2013 reassessment.”     Id.   Mr. Blanda attached a letter asserting that the
Assessment Office had no right to require him to secure an appraisal in order to have
the lodge’s square footage reviewed again. Id. He reiterated his position that the
2013 calculation of 4,274 square feet for the lodge was in error and that the
Assessment Office’s unilateral reduction to 3,125 square feet via Solicitor Rullo’s
September 2016 letter and Rizzo’s July 2018 letter was also in error. Id.

                                          9
             The record contains no further documentation concerning the Blandas’
August 2018 assessment appeal, and there is no record of a hearing on that appeal
before the Board. The Taxing Authorities’ Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the trial
court indicates that the Board denied the Blandas’ appeal by “Formal Decision dated
May 2, 2019”; however, that decision is not in the trial court’s original record in this
matter. The Blandas appealed the Board’s denial to the trial court on May 31, 2019.
O.R. #1. After several continuances, the trial court held a proceeding on March 4,
2022. O.R. #15. Appearing pro se, Mr. Blanda stated that he brought exhibits for
the trial court’s consideration, but the trial court declined to accept them, stating
instead that the proceeding was limited to argument on whether the square footage
issue had been previously litigated. Id. at 2 & 8.
             During the proceeding, Mr. Blanda reiterated that the Assessment
Office’s 2008 calculation for the lodge as 2,206 square feet was correct and that the
2013 calculation of 4,274 square feet based on the rental advertisement was incorrect
because no additions to the lodge had been made during those years. O.R. #15 at 3.
The error arose, Mr. Blanda explained, because the 2008 assessment had the correct
square footage but had incorrectly assigned the lodge only one story rather than two
and one-half; the only correction needed in 2013, therefore, was to fix the error in
the lodge’s recorded stories rather than to double the square footage, which had not
changed. Id. at 3-5.
             The trial court observed that the Blandas could have presented evidence
to challenge the Assessment Office’s 2013 figures during the prior proceedings in
2014 and had declined to do so. O.R. #15 at 6. The trial court reasoned that the
Blandas’ EADS drawings, which were prepared after this Court’s January 2016
decision, did not constitute new or previously unavailable evidence; the lodge’s

                                          10
square footage had been litigated to a final determination by the trial court and was
upheld in relevant part by this Court. Id. at 6 & 9-11. Counsel for the Taxing
Authorities agreed with the trial court’s evaluation of the matter. Id. at 7. At the
close of the proceeding, the trial court stated that it would be dismissing the Blandas’
appeal on the basis of collateral estoppel. Id. at 13.
              Accordingly, the trial court issued an order on April 11, 2022,
dismissing the Blandas’ appeal with prejudice. O.R. #14. The trial court stated that
the Blandas were collaterally estopped from challenging the Assessment Office’s
2016 calculation for the lodge as 3,125 square feet because the issue of square
footage had been before the trial court in the previous litigation; therefore, the trial
court did not opine on the Assessment Office’s 2016 calculation. Id. at 1-2. The
trial court added that during the prior proceedings, the Blandas had the opportunity
to introduce evidence in support of their challenge but had not done so beyond
averring that the 2008 figure was correct. Id. at 2. The Blandas timely appealed to
this Court.

                                    II. Discussion
              Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, relitigation of an issue of fact
or law determined in a prior proceeding is precluded if (1) the issue decided in the
prior case is identical to the one presented in the later action; (2) there was a final
adjudication on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea is asserted was a
party or in privity with a party in the prior case; (4) the party or person privy to the
party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate
the issue in the prior proceeding; and (5) the determination in the prior proceeding
was essential to the judgment. Erisco Indus., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.

                                           11
(Luvine), 955 A.2d 1065, 1068-69 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).6 Collateral estoppel “only
requires that a party be given a full and fair chance to litigate the issue. The fact that
more conclusive evidence might be presented at a subsequent hearing is neither
sufficient nor relevant grounds for disallowing the application of the doctrine in this
Commonwealth.” Id. at 1069 (quoting Dep’t of Transp. v. Martinelli, 563 A.2d 973,
976-77 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989)).
              In Hershey’s Mill Homeowner’s Association v. Chester County, 862
A.2d 146 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (Hershey’s II), the association had previously argued
that its golf course was a “common facility” for the association’s homeowners and
did not have independent economic value; therefore, it should not have been
assessed separately from the homes in the association. Id. at 147-48. A trial court
denied the association’s appeal, and this Court affirmed in a November 2000
memorandum opinion. Id. at 148; Hershey’s Mill Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Chester
County (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2535 C.D. 1999, filed Nov. 9, 2000) (unreported)
(Hershey’s I). Several years later, the association again appealed the golf course
assessment, arguing that the law had changed due to a decision of this Court that had
been issued after Hershey’s I. Hershey’s II, 862 A.2d at 149. That trial court
concluded that the case at issue was not a change in the law and deemed the
Association’s challenge collaterally estopped due to the prior litigation in Hershey’s
I. Hershey’s II, 862 A.2d at 149.
              The matter returned to this Court, which in Hershey’s II considered
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948), where the United
States Supreme Court recognized that “each tax year was the ‘origin of a new

       6
         Our 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. Blanda I, 131 A.3d at 562 n.4.

                                              12
liability and of a separate cause of action’” because income taxes were levied
annually. Hershey’s II, 862 A.2d at 150 (quoting Sunnen). Generally, “if the
subsequent proceeding involved a similar or different claim regarding a different tax
year, the prior judgment would only act to collaterally estop those matters in the
second proceeding that were actually presented in the first suit.” Id. As such,
             where a question of fact essential to the judgment is
             actually litigated and determined in the first tax
             proceeding, the parties are bound by that determination in
             a subsequent proceeding even though the cause of action
             is different. And if the very same facts and no others are
             involved in the second case, a case relating to a different
             tax year, the prior judgment will be conclusive as to the
             same legal issues which appear, assuming no intervening
             doctrinal change.

Id. (citations omitted). However, “subsequent modification of the significant facts
or a change or development in the controlling legal principles may make [a previous
determination] obsolete or erroneous, at least for future purposes.” Id.
             This Court concluded in Hershey’s II that Sunnen applied to real estate
tax appeals as well as income tax issues and proceeded to consider the association’s
assertion that the law had changed since its prior appeal in Hershey’s I, noting: “If
no change in the law has occurred, then Sunnen holds that a party will be collaterally
estopped from relitigating the same issues regarding subsequent and different tax
years, even though different tax years are normally considered a new cause of
action.” 862 A.2d at 151. After concluding that the case cited by the association
was distinguishable and did not amount to a change in the law to the association’s
benefit, this Court upheld a trial court’s collateral estoppel determination:
             [B]ecause there has been no change in the law, all that is
             before us is the identical issue that was raised before the
             courts in 1999. On November 9, 2000, the matter was
             conclusively decided with a final decision being issued by

                                          13
             this Court in Hershey’s I. There is no question that the
             parties in this proceeding were the same litigants in
             Hershey’s I, and the [a]ssociation had a full and fair
             opportunity to litigate the issue regarding the golf course
             in Hershey’s I. Consequently, the [a]ssociation is
             collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of whether
             the golf course is a common facility and exempt from
             taxation for tax years 2000 through 2003 based on the
             reasoning set forth in Sunnen.

Id. at 151-52.
             Here, as stated above, the trial court dismissed the Blandas’ appeal on
the basis of collateral estoppel after concluding that the litigation that terminated
with this Court’s January 2016 opinion in Blanda I had resolved the issue of the
lodge’s square footage at 4,274 feet. O.R. #14. Nevertheless, the Blandas maintain
that the 2,206 square footage calculation from 2008 was correct and the only error
at that time was the assessment indication that the lodge had one story instead of two
and one-half. According to the Blandas, the Assessment Office erred in 2013 when
it not only corrected the number of floors the lodge has in its records but also doubled
the square footage to over 4,000 feet. Blandas’ Br. at 9-12. This alleged error then
persisted through this Court’s January 2016 decision and remains uncorrected. Id.
at 14-15.
             The Blandas aver that in this matter, the trial court’s conclusion that the
issue of the lodge’s square footage is collaterally estopped wrongly enshrines the
prior error and deprives them of a full and fair hearing where their new evidence (the
2016 EADS drawings) can be properly considered. Blandas’ Br. at 18. The Blandas
posit that Solicitor Rullo’s September 2016 letter advising that the Assessment
Office had reviewed the drawings and was willing to reduce the assessed square
footage of the lodge to 3,125 square feet and Rizzo’s July 2018 letter
commemorating that change in the assessment records constituted a new

                                          14
determination on square footage that the Blandas did not have the opportunity to
refute. Id. at 21. Therefore, according to the Blandas, collateral estoppel is not
applicable here. Id.
              The Taxing Authorities respond that the trial court correctly concluded
that collateral estoppel precludes the Blandas from relitigating the square footage of
the lodge because they had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence during the
prior litigation and declined to do so. Taxing Authorities’ Br. at 19. The Taxing
Authorities point out that if no change in the facts or law has occurred, then “a party
will be collaterally estopped from relitigating the same issues regarding subsequent
and different tax years, even though different tax years are normally considered a
new cause of action.” Id. at 19-20 (quoting Hershey’s II, 862 A.2d at 151).
              The Taxing Authorities rely on the litigation that ended with this
Court’s January 2016 decision in Blanda I, which affirmed the trial court’s
conclusion that the Blandas’ lodge was 4,274 square feet.7 Taxing Authorities’ Br.
at 20. According to the Taxing Authorities, those resolutions finalized the lodge’s
square footage, and the Blandas cannot relitigate that issue, particularly when they
could have presented evidence during Blanda I in support of their calculations (e.g.,
the EADS drawings) and failed to do so. Id.
              Regarding the Assessment Office’s reduction of the assessed square
footage of the lodge from 4,274 square feet to 3,125 square feet in Solicitor Rullo’s
September 2016 letter, the Taxing Authorities assert that the Blandas could have
pursued their then-pending appeal of the 2017 assessment. Taxing Authorities’ Br.

       7
         Although the subsequent stipulation filed with and approved by the trial court in April
2016 formally concluded the Blanda I litigation, it is not at issue here because it expressly
pertained only to the lodge’s construction grading and did not address the issue of the lodge’s
square footage.

                                              15
at 23-24. Instead, the Taxing Authorities note, the Blandas did nothing until two
years later when they filed the August 31, 2018 appeal of the 2019 assessment, which
underlies this matter; the Taxing Authorities argue that the Blandas therefore waived
their present claims. Id. at 24.
             Applying the well-settled test for collateral estoppel as set forth in
Erisco Industries, four of the five required elements are clearly met here. There was
a final determination on the merits in Blanda I, specifically that the Assessment
Office acted properly and that its revised measurement of 4,274 square feet for the
lodge would stand. Id. at 565-66. The Blandas and the Taxing Authorities were the
parties in Blanda I and are again the parties in this matter. The Blandas also had a
full and fair opportunity to litigate the square footage of the lodge in Blanda I. There,
the trial court concluded that the Blandas’ evidence, which was limited to Mr.
Blanda’s testimony, failed to establish that the Assessment Office’s 2013
measurement of 4,274 square feet was incorrect. Trial Ct. Op. (from Blanda I
litigation) at 4 & 7-8. Specifically, the trial court concluded that at trial, the Blandas
“refused to provide their own measurements of the property” in order to refute the
Assessment Office’s calculation. Id. at 4. The trial court noted that during the course
of proceedings, “it was suggested to Mr. Blanda on various occasions to get an
appraisal of the lodge done,” and that Solicitor Rullo “stated in closing that [he] ‘was
even willing to continue the trial’ to give Mr. Blanda an opportunity to bring an
appraiser in to testify, but Mr. Blanda refused to get an appraisal done.” Id. Lastly,
the determination by the trial court that the lodge was 4,274 square feet was essential
to the ultimate judgment in Blanda I: the trial court concluded in that matter that the
Blandas failed to establish that the Taxing Authorities’ 2013 amendment increasing

                                           16
the square footage for the lodge and the resulting assessment were incorrect or
improper. 131 A.3d at 565-66.
             However, one element of the test for collateral estoppel cannot be easily
disposed of: whether the issue in Blanda I was identical to the issue the Blandas now
seek to litigate. In August 2016, months after this Court’s decision in Blanda I, the
Blandas formally appealed the Assessment Office’s 2017 assessment of the lodge’s
square footage at 4,274 square feet, asserting that the EADS drawings constituted
“new evidence” establishing that the lodge’s total living area was only 2,448 square
feet, significantly lower than the 4,274 square feet established in Blanda I. O.R. #10
(Ex. B to the Taxing Authorities’ Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the Trial Court).
             Had the Assessment Office maintained the 4,274 square footage figure
from Blanda I, the Blandas would be collaterally estopped from further challenges
to the lodge’s square footage because the issue would be the same as the issue
presented in Blanda I. However, Solicitor Rullo’s September 14, 2016 letter to the
Blandas stated that the Assessment Office had reviewed the EADS drawings and was
willing to reduce the assessed square footage of the lodge from 4,274 square feet to
3,125 square feet.    O.R. #10 (Ex. D to the Taxing Authorities’ Pre-Hearing
Statement/Brief to the Trial Court). Rizzo’s July 5, 2018 letter to the Blandas
expressly commemorated that change in the assessment records. O.R. #11 (Ex. H to
the Blandas’ Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the Trial Court).
             The Assessment Office thus unilaterally made a new determination of
the lodge’s square footage and changed the resulting valuation of the property based
on its review of the EADS drawings. The Blandas were then deprived of a full and
fair opportunity to litigate the meaning of the drawings or to challenge the
Assessment Office’s new square footage determination and resulting new valuation

                                         17
of the property.8        The Assessment Office’s actions therefore created new
circumstances and a new “issue” that was not previously litigated before the Board
or the courts in Blanda I.
               This distinguishes this case from Hershey’s II, where the local
assessment authority did not change the status of the golf course or any other
circumstances so as to render collateral estoppel inapplicable. There, unlike here,
the property owner presented “the very same facts and no others” when the matter
was litigated a second time. 862 A.2d at 150. By contrast, the Blandas have
presented different facts here, specifically the Assessment Office’s new
determination that the lodge is 3,125 square feet, not 4,274 square feet. Accordingly,
the Blandas are entitled to a full and fair Board evaluation of their current challenge,
during which they may present evidence, including the EADS drawings that were
reviewed and considered by the Assessment Office in reducing the assessed square
footage of the lodge from 4,274 square feet to 3,125 square feet.9
               Lastly, although the Blandas ultimately did not pursue their challenge
to the assessment for the 2017 tax year and presumably paid the taxes on the “new”
lodge figure of 3,125 square feet in 2017 and 2018, they did not waive their appeal
rights. As noted, under Hershey’s II, each tax year is the “origin of a new liability

       8
         Somerset County is subject to the Consolidated County Assessment Law, 53 Pa.C.S.
§§ 8801-8868. Pursuant to Section 8844(c), any person aggrieved by an assessment may appeal
to the county’s assessment board on or before September 1. 53 Pa.C.S. § 8844(c); In re Rausch
Creek Land, L.P., 59 A.3d 1, 6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

       9
          We note that neither Section 8844 of the Consolidated County Assessment Law nor its
case law authorized the Taxing Authorities’ statements in various letters to the Blandas that their
right to an appeal hearing before the Board was conditioned on obtaining an appraisal. See In re
Springfield Sch. Dist., 101 A.3d 835, 848 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (stating that the Consolidated County
Assessment Law “does not require a certified appraiser’s review before filing an assessment
appeal”).

                                                18
and of a separate cause of action.” 862 A.2d at 150 (quoting Sunnen). Also, payment
of taxes is a prerequisite to the ability to appeal an assessment and seek a refund as
long as that is done within three years of payment. Lutes v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of
Assessment Appeals, 936 A.2d 573, 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (citing Section 1 of
what is commonly known as the Refund Act, Act of May 21, 1943, P.L. 349, as
amended, 72 P.S. § 5566b). As such, the Assessment Office’s creation of new
circumstances when it reduced the square footage of the lodge from 4,274 to 3,125
in September 2016 (for the 2017 tax year) meant that the Blandas retained the right
to pursue their challenge to those new facts for the 2019 tax year, which they did in
a timely manner before September 1, 2018. O.R. #10 (Ex. E to the Taxing
Authorities’ Pre-Hearing Statement/Brief to the Trial Court).
             In light of the foregoing, the trial court erred in concluding that
collateral estoppel precluded the Blandas’ 2018 appeal after the Assessment Office
unilaterally reduced the lodge’s assessed square footage in September 2016 from the
judicially determined figure of 4,274 square feet to 3,125 square feet. This matter is
remanded to the trial court to address the merits of the Blandas’ appeal. In the event
the trial court concludes that the current record requires supplementation or that
further Board proceedings are necessary, the trial court may remand to the Board for
further action as the trial court may direct, consistent with this opinion.

                                          19
                                  III. Conclusion
             The trial court’s order dismissing the Blandas’ real estate tax
assessment appeal on the basis of collateral estoppel is reversed. This matter is
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                       __________________________________
                                       CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

                                         20
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

James B. Blanda                            :
and Suzanne R. Blanda,                     :
                         Appellants        :
                                           :
            v.                             :
                                           :
The Somerset County Board of               :
Assessment Appeals, Somerset               :
County, Township of Jefferson,             :   No. 409 C.D. 2022
and Somerset Area School District          :

                                    ORDER

            AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2024, the April 12, 2022 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County is REVERSED. This matter is
REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

            Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                         __________________________________
                                         CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge