Court Opinion

ID: 9753286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:06:37.197532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:34.969415
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge BROBSON.
I respectfully dissent.
As the majority recognizes, a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer should be granted only in cases that are clear and free from doubt. When considering such a preliminary objection, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and must afford the nonmoving party all reasonable inferences therefrom. Tax Collectors challenge Taxing Authorities’ decision to reduce Tax Collectors’ compensation as arbitrary and capricious. To support their claim, Tax Collectors allege, inter alia, the following:
11. On or around February of 2005, the school board members of Defendant Cambria School District voted to reduce the pay scale of the Plaintiff Tax collectors from approximately 2.9% of all collections made for real estate tax, to a flat rate of 3.00 per parcel. The modest per capita pay scale described above stayed the same.
12. This change reduced the tax collectors pay from Defendant Central Cambria School District by over 60%, and with the fixed expenses of the tax collectors, eliminated any profit (income) for the tax collectors from the endeavor of collecting on behalf of Defendant Central Cambria School District. The injustice of this pay reduction was further magnified by the additional work the tax collector had to perform because of the new requirements of the Homestead Act.
13. It should be noted that a then school board member, who voted in favor of this reduction (in a 5-4 vote), later signed the Plaintiffs petition in protest of this reduction, further evidencing the arbitrariness of this government action. It also should be noted that when protesting this action prior to the November of 2005 election, a school board member commented and taunted the tax collectors at a public meeting, telling them, that if they didn’t like the change in pay they should quit.
14. On or around February of 2005, the Defendant Cambria County Commissioners reduced the pay scale of the Plaintiff Tax collectors from approximately 1.9% of all collections made for real estate tax, to a flat rate of $2.85 per parcel for the first 2500 parcels and $1.25 for every other parcel. The modest per capita pay scale described above stayed the same.
*49615. This change reduced the tax collectors pay from Defendant Cambria County Commissioners by over 50%, and with the fixed expenses of the tax collectors, eliminated any profit (income) for the tax collectors from the endeavor of collecting on behalf of Defendant Cambria County Commissioners. The injustice of this pay reduction was further magnified by the additional work the tax collectors had to perform because of the requirements of the Homestead Act and the commissioners requiring that the tax collectors mail taxes out a month earlier than previously mandated.
21. Despite this drastic reduction in pay, none of the defendants has ever solicited, begun, or otherwise discussed doing a study, or survey on any other compensated individual or entity, in the County for purposes of saving money.
22. Despite this drastic reduction in pay, nearly every other employee of the county received a pay increase at the same time the tax collectors received this drastic pay decrease.
23. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the commissioners reduced their budget by reducing the compensation of the tax collector positions.
24. It is reasonably believed that Discovery will show that the Defendants true intention with this reduction was the elimination of the tax collector position.
(Reproduced Record at 225a-27a.)
The majority reads these allegations as merely conclusory or equivocal, noting specifically that Tax Collectors allege what they “believe” they can prove if afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery. Under the applicable standard of review, I believe these allegations are sufficient to withstand a request for dismissal of Tax Collectors’ claim at this preliminary stage of litigation. Moreover, I note that Tax Collectors were not required to plead with absolute certainty that they can prove alleged facts. In this regard, Rule 1024(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Every pleading containing an averment of fact not appearing of record in the action or containing a denial of fact shall state that the averment or denial is true upon the signer’s personal knowledge or information and belief and shall be verified. The signer need not aver the source of the information or expectation of ability to prove the averment or denial at trial. A pleading may be verified upon personal knowledge as to a part and upon information and belief as to the remainder.
(Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, I would reverse the trial court to the extent it dismissed Tax Collectors’ claim that the Taxing Authorities’ decision to reduce Tax Collector’s compensation was arbitrary and capricious and, consequently, remand for the filing of an answer.