Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-4076RICHARD L. BROWNAWELL, JR. APPELLANT BOARD OF ASSESSMENT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY APPELLEE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. ASSESSMENT APPEL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT APPEAL Pursuant to the Act of 42 PA C.S. 5571 and 72 P S 5350, your Appellant, Richard L. Brownawell, Jr., files this Notice of Assessment Appeal and respectfully represents: The Appellant, Richard L. Brownawell, Jr., is an adult individual and is the legal owner of real estate premises containing two lots of approximately one acre each located at or about 230 Mt. Zion Road, ~.~t,~_ /. /~ 1"i.o/~, . Lower Franlclora Townsh,p, Cumberlana County, Pennsylvania. The Appellee is the Board of Assessment of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with offices at the Old Cumberland County Courthouse, Corner of High Street and Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. In the year 2004, the Appellant, upon receipt of a new assessment, filed an Appeal with the Board of Assessment of Cumberland County, which was heard before the Board of Assessment of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. A hearing was held upon the appeal of Richard L. Brownawell, Jr., with respect to his new assessment notice. In July 2004 the Board of Assessment heard Richard L. Brownawell, Jr.'s, appeal and recommended that he combine his vacant one acre lot with his adjoining one acre lot which contains his residence. e 10. 11. The Appellant at that time accepted the Board of Assessment's recommendation to combine his less vacant lot with his residential lot which contains his residential structure. Further, the Beard of Assessment because he combined his vacant one acre with his adjoining improved one acre lot, wrote its assessment for each lot to $29,050 each, apparently. The Appellant was unrepresented at this Board of Assessment hearing. The Appellant avers that the Appellant did not understand what that did to his building lot and mistakingly believed that he should agree with the Board of Assessment's recommendation as he would be in a better situation and further mistakingly believed that he could not use his vacant lot anyway, which caused him to agree with the recommendation of the Board of Assessment. The Appellant further avers that the appraisal of the vacant lot to be equivalent to the improved lot is a clear manifest abuse of discretion or is contrary to law. In any event, the Appellant desires to cancel his acceptance of the Board of Assessment's recommendation to combine his vacant lot into his improved let and requests a de nero hearing with respect to the assessment of his improved lot and his vacant lot. 2 WHEREFORE, your Appellant respectfully requests that the acceptance of the Appellant to combine his vacant lot with his improved lot be set aside and voided and cancelled; that the filings of fact and conclusions of law by the Board of Assessment be corrected and reformed especially as they relate to the Appellants vacant lot; such other relief as your Honorable Court deems just or appropriate. R, chdr~ C. Rupp, Esqdire Atty. I.D. No. 34832 355 N. 21" St., Ste. 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-761-3459 Attorneys for Appellant 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of August, 2004, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the within document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U. S. Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: Cumberland County Board of Assessment One Courthouse Square Carlisl~_,~ 4 RICHARD L. BROWNEWELL, JR. : Appellant : : V. .. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT OF ' CUMBERLAND COUNTY ' : Appellee . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2004-40'76 ASSESSMENT ~ NEW~MA.~TTER AND NOW, comes the Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Board of Assessment Appeals, by its attorney, Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, and files this Answer to the Notice of Assessment Appeal, of which the following is statement: 1. Admitted. By way of further Answer Appellant owns two adjoining lots known as Cumberland County tax parcel no. 14-06-0025-040A, hereinafter ("040A"), and tax parcel no. 14-06- 0025-040B, hereinafter C040B. ") 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part. Denied in part. The averments of this paragraph are admitted except insofar as they may imply that a Hearing by the Board of Assessment Appeals was held on parcel 040A. Upon receipt of his reassessment notice for parcel 040A, which set forth a value of $89,440, Appellant filed an appeal. At an informal review Appellant and Assessment Office agreed to an assessment of $80,730 for parcel 040A. Therefore, Appellant withdrew his appeal for parcel 040A. Appellant had also appealed his assessment of parcel 040B, which was in the amount of $29,000. Appellant and the Assessment Office could not agree on an informal review and therefore a Hearing on that parcel alone was scheduled and heard by the Board. At the Hearing on parcel 040B, Appellant agreed to consolidate parcels 04013 with parcel 040A. The resulting: overall assessment would be less since there would be no separate assessment of 040/3 as a separate building lot, but rather its acreage would be considered as simply additional acreage associated with parcel 040A. Pursuant to that agreement, the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals was to reduce 040B to zero with the Answer with New Matter - Richard L. Brownewell, Jr. Page 1 of 4 understanding that the assessment for parcel 040A would be increased to $81,740. The formal written decision resulting from that hearing has not been issued as those decisions are scheduled for mailing immediately after Labor Day of 2004. 4. Admitted in part, Denied in part. The averments of paragraph 3 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 5. Admitted in part. Denied in part. The Assessment Office advised that a combination of the lots would result in a lower overall assessment, however, that advice was limited to assessment issues and was not a general "recommendation.,, The averments of paragraph 3 of this Answer are incorporated herein. 6. Admitted in part. Denied in part. The averments of Paragraphs 3 & 5 of this Answer are incorporated herein. 7. Denied. After study, the Board of Assessment Appeals cannot ascertain what paragraph 7 of Appellant's Notice states. By way of further Answer, paragraph 3 of this Answer is incorporated herein. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. The averments of this Paragraph set forth beliefs which are solely within the knowledge of the Appellant, outside the knowledge of the Appellee, and for which strict proof at trial is demanded. I 0. Denied. It is denied that the allocation of the total market value of the improved lot between land and improvements is relevant to this or any other proceeding. By way of further Answer, the Board of assessment Appeals avers that the fair market value of the vacant lot (parcel 040B) is at least $29,000 as a separate lot and that the value of the improved parcel (040A) is at least $80,730 as a separate house and lot. By way of further Answer, the averments of this Paragraph set forth conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. Answer with New Matter - Richard L, Brownewell, Jr. Page 2 of 4 I 1. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted Appellant desires to reverse his request to consolidate his vacant lot (Parcel 040B) into his improved lot (Parcel 040A) and that he desires a de novo Hearing in respect to both lots. The Board of Assessment Appeals has no objection to Appellant's reversal of his request for consolidation. The Board of Assessment Appeals avers, however, that Appellant has no right to an appeal to Court of his assessment on the improved lot (Parcel 040A) as he withdrew that appeal upon agreement. If the Court finds that Appellant does have a right to a Hearing concerning the improved lot (Parcel 040A) then the Board of Assessment Appeals agrees that any such Hearing would be de novo and the Board of Assessment Appeals will at that time prove a value of the improved lot (Parcel 040A) in excess of $80,730. With the Board of Assessment Appeals' agreement to allow Appellant to reverse his consolidafi,~,, _r ~,- , · --,, ,,~ me dots, the sole issue before the Court is the value of the unimproved lot (Parcel 040B), and .at that de novo Hearing the Board of Assessment Appeals will prove the value of that lot to be at or greater than $29,000. WHEREFORE, the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, Appellee, respectfully requests Your Honorable Court for an Order confirrning that the improved lot (Parcel 040A) is not a subject of this appeal (or that its assessment shall remain at $80,730) and for an Order setting the value of the unimproved lot (Parcel 040B) at $29,000 ,or such higher figure as, to the Court, may seem just and proper. 12. The averments of paragraph's 1 through 11 of the fi)regoing Answer are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 13. The preamble to Appellant's Notice of Assessment Appeal refers to this appeal as being flied pursuant to 72 P.S. §5350. That Section is part of the Assessment Law applicable to Counties of the Second Class "A" and Third Class. Cumberland County is a Fourth Class County and therefore the applicable statute is The Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law, 72 P.S. §5453.101 et. Seq. and the applicable Section for this appeal is Section 704 of that law (72 P.S. §5453.704.) Answer with New Matter. Richard L. Brownewell, Jr. Page 3 of 4 WHEREFORE, the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, Appellee, respectfully requests Your Honorable Court for an Order confirming that the improved lot (Parcel 040A) is not a subject of this appeal (or that its assessment shall remain at $80,730) and for an Order setting the value of the unimproved lot (Parcel 040B) at $29,0t)0 or such higher figure as, to the Court, may seem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Ste~y, Esquire Attorney for Respondent 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Supreme Court I.D.#32318 I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct, partially upon personal knowledge and partially upon my belief; to the extent language in the Answer with New Matter is that of my attorneys, I have relied upon my attorneys in making this Verification. I understand that false statements herein are made and subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~~honey, Chief Assessor Answer with New Matter - Richard L. Brownewell, Jr. Page 4 of 4 Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey and Tiley Supreme Court No. 32318 Attorneys for Respondent Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Tel.: 717-243-5838 Fax.: 717-243-6441 RICHARD L. BROWNEWELL, JR. : IN THE COURT OF COMMO-~LEAS O-F Appellant BOARD OF ASSESSMENT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Appellee : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2004-4076 : ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter by placing a certified true and correct copy of the same in thc United States mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to: Richard C. Rupp, Esquire RUPP AND MEIKLE Attorneys for Appellant 355 N. 21st St., Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Atty. I.D. No. 34832 Date: gtepl(en D~-Tiley~squire Assistant Cumb. Co. Solicitor 5 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 1713,13 (717) 243-5838 Attorney I.D.#32318