Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-1569IN RE: APPEAL OF CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT and THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE from the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County of February 4, 2010, in Connection with Property of Carlisle Corporation known as Parcel No. 50-08-0579-011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 0? REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL Q ca Y1 APPEAL OF CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT ; Z . AND THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE FROM THE n ?? DECISION OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD Or-L_' vin ASSESSMENT APPEALS cx? AND NOW, Appellants, Carlisle Area School District and the Borough of Carlisle by SAMIS, FLOWER & LENDSAY 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA and through their counsel, Saidis, Flower & Lindsay, hereby appeal the decision of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals (the "Board") and avers in support thereof as follows: 1. Appellant, Carlisle Area School District is a school district with an address at 623 West Penn Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. Appellant, the Borough of Carlisle is a municipality with offices located as 53 West South Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. The taxpayer is Carlisle Corporation, which is the owner of a certain tract of real estate, together with improvements located thereon, situated at 1285 Ritner Highway, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 and identified by the Board as Parcel No. 50-08-0579-011 (the "Property"). i 4. The Property was assessed at $12,137,670, which, applying the common level i ratio, suggested a market value of $15,349,715. i 5. The Taxpayer appealed the assessment to the Board and a hearing was held by the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals on February 4, 2010. 9D-Wteal, . a * 7 7o%S` Atilt .1 3rs Sa3 6. The Board by notice dated February 5, 2010, reduced the assessment for the Property from $12,137,670 to $8,621,900, suggesting a value, applying the common level ratio, of $10,900,000. A copy of the decision of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 7. The assessment of the Property as affixed by the Board is improper, unjust and contrary to the law for the following reasons: (a) The assessment is based in whole or in part upon an appraisal that does not represent the actual fair market value of the Property, and the actual fair market value of the Property is well excess of that reflected in the Board's decision; SAMIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATrDfM'YS-AT uw 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA (b) The ratio of assessed value to actual value applied in making the assessments is below the ratio applied by the taxing authority; (c) The assessment of the Taxpayer's Property is substantially lower than the assessments of comparable properties in the taxing district; (d) The assessment is based upon an erroneous determination of the fair market value of the Property; (e) The assessment of the Property is arbitrary and capacious when compared to the assessments of similarly situated property; (f) The assessment violates the uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution; (g) The assessment of the Property does not reflect the current fair market value of the Property by application of the common level ratio as published by the Tax Equalization Board; (h) The assessment lacks uniformity; (i) The assessment is otherwise unjust and inequitable. 8. Other affected taxing authorities include: Cumberland County, Pennsylvania One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 9. This appeal is authorized pursuant to Section 518.1 of the General County Assessment Law (72 PS 5020-581.1; 72 PS 5020-520) and pursuant to the 4th to 8th Class County Assessment Law (72 PS 5453.706). WHEREFORE, Appellants, the Carlisle Area School District and the Borough of Carlisle, request that this Honorable Court review and increase the assessment fixed for the Property for the 2010 tax year, and any subsequent year's assessment arising so long as this appeal is pending, by establishing the fair market value of the Property and applying the proper common level ratio thereto, and to make such other orders and decrees as the Court may deem just and proper. SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY 39 - -&?& Brmes Flower, Jr., Esquire D. No. 2 7742 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Counsel for Appellants, Carlisle Area School District and Borough of Carlisle SAIDIS, )FLOWER & LEVDSAY MTOWEMAT-LAW 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. n JOIN VRIENU, Assistar# Superintendent C lisle Area School Dist ict Date: SAIDIS, FWVVM &z LINDSAY ATR)RNET,AT•uw 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Old Courthouse One Courthouse Square (717) 240-6350 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6354 (fax) Board of Assessment Appeals BONNIE M. MAHONEY Lloyd W. Bucher Chief Assessor Albert Peterlin Allen Shank STEPHEN D. TILEY Assistant Solicitor DECISION ORDER MAILING DATE: February 5, 2010 PARCEL NUMBER: 50-08-0579-011. CARLISLE CORPORATION PO BOX 7000 CARLISLE PA 17013 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to officially notify you of the decision of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals regarding the above-referenced parcel. DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: 02/04/2010 DATE DECISION RENDERED: 02/04/2010 EFFECTIVE FOR TAX YEAR: 2010 DECISION RENDERED: [ ] Withdrawn By Applicant [ ] Abandoned For Failure To Appear [ ] Denied - No Change [ ] Approved Review Appraiser's Changes [X] Revised Assessment Based on Hearing [ ] Other: TOTAL VALUE FAIR MARKET CLEAN AND GREEN CLEAN AND GREEN STATUS Old Assessed Value: 12,137,670 New Assessed Value: 8,621,900 NOT APPLICABLE Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's office on or before March 5, 2010. EXHIBIT 11 Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Old Courthouse One Courthouse Square (717) 240-6350 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6354 (fax) Board of Assessment Appeals BONNIE M. MAHONEY Lloyd W. Bucher Chief Assessor Albert Peterlin Allen Shank STEPHEN D. TILEY Assistant Solicitor DECISION ORDER MAILING DATE: February 5, 2010 PARCEL NUMBER: 50-08-0579-011. CARLISLE CORPORATION MINDY MCMASTER 1285 RITNER HIGHWAY CARLISLE PA 17013 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to officially notify you of the decision of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals regarding the above-referenced parcel. DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: 02/04/2010 DATE DECISION RENDERED: 02/04/2010 EFFECTIVE FOR TAX YEAR: 2010 DECISION RENDERED: [ ] Withdrawn By Applicant [ ] Abandoned For Failure To Appear [ ] Denied - No Change [ ] Approved Review Appraiser's Changes [X] Revised Assessment Based on Hearing [ ] Other: TOTAL VALUE FAIR MARKET CLEAN AND GREEN CLEAN AND GREEN STATUS Old Assessed Value: 12,137,670 New Assessed Value: 8,621,900 NOT APPLICABLE Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's office on or before March 5, 2010. MAR 09 Zolti q IN RE: APPEAL OF CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT and THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE from the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County of February 4, 2010, in Connection with Property of Carlisle Corporation known as Parcel No. 50-08-0579-011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. /D_ / JJ4 q &a REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENTAPPEAL ORDER AND NOW, this day of ?Qi} 10 ?J , 2010, upon consideration, Appellant, Carlisle Area School District and the Borough of Carlisle Petition for Appeal of the Decision Order of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Petition is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that trial relative to the above-referenced appeal will occur on 16-'0 day of , 2010, at ?; 30 m. in Courtroom. SAIDIS, FLOWER & i ENDSAY nrrontvE'xs•,vuw 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA ?J .?'l ?n V? Icy Qi? e C'. J. ?C£r. N C5 U7 Cs.) C PA M Cj BY THE COURT: J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 2010-1569 Civil Term APPEAL OF CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL • DISTRICT FROM THE CUMBERLAND • COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS : Real Estate Tax Assessment Appeal IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY : Tax Parcel No.: 50-08-0579-011 OF CARLISLE CORPORATION • PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter our appearance in this matter on behalf of Appellant, Carlisle Area School District. Respectfully submitted, STOCK AND LEADER Date: October 25, 2013 By: e"'"----- 4hilip H. Spare, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 65200 Gareth D. Pahowka, Esquire Supreme Court ID No.: 309184 Attorney for Intervener, Carlisle Area School District Susquehanna Commerce Center 221 West Philadelphia Street, Suite E600 York, PA 17401-2994 Telephone (717) 846-9800 Fax No. (717) 843-6134 0112458- a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: • 2010-1569 Civil Term APPEAL OF CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL • DISTRICT FROM THE CUMBERLAND • COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS : Real Estate Tax Assessment Appeal IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY Tax Parcel No.: 50-08-0579-011 OF CARLISLE CORPORATION • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2013, I, Gareth D. Pahowka, Esquire, of the law firm of Stock and Leader, attorneys for Carlisle Area School District, hereby certify that I served the within Praecipe for Entry of Appearance this day by depositing the same in the United States mail,postage prepaid, in York, Pennsylvania, addressed to: John G. French, Esquire Carlisle Corporation Solicitor, Cumberland County Board of PO Box 7000 Assessment Appeals Carlisle, PA 17013 1304 Oak Lane New Cumberland, PA 17602 Carlisle Corporation 1285 Ritner Highway Carlisle, PA 17013 STOCK AND LEADER October 25, 2013 By: Date G D. Pahowka, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #309184 Susquehanna Commerce Center; Suite E600 221 West Philadelphia Street York, PA 17401-2994 Telephone: (717) 846-9800 Fax: (717) 843-6134 0112458- In Re:Appeal of Carlisle Area School District and the Borough of Carlisle from the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County in Connection with the Property of Carlisle Corporation known as Parcel No.50-08-0579-011 vs Case No. 10-1569 Civil '1.> Cr, 2., Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: Carlisle Area School District intends to proceed with the above cap • d matter. Gareth D. Pahowka, Esquire Print Name Sign Name 10/25/2013 Carlisle Area School District Date: Attorney for Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. I.Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice,preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v.Eagle,551 Pa.360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that"prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b)has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision(a)of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity,the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case,they will take no action and"the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter,he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Ru1e230(d)for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket,subdivision(d)(2)provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period,subdivision(d)(3)requires that the plaintiff must make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision(d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.