Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-5078 WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfrer Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 LFGC, INC., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee : NO. 05-37J7f' CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Partie:, : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL PETITION FOR APPEAL AND NOW, thi, 28th day of September, 20015, come LFGC, INC. ("Appellant"), by and through its attomey, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and files the following Petition for Appeal, and, in support thereof, avers, as follows: I. LFGC, INC. is the record owner of a recreation complex known as Liberty Forge which is located at 3804 Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 ("Property"). The Property is identified in the Cumberland County assessment records as Parcel No. 13-11-0270-042 in Lower Allen Township, and Parcel No. 42-11-0272-132 in Upper Allen Township. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 2. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and the WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT are the taxing bodies who are interested in the taxable status of the Property. The MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT has not intervened in these proceedings. 3. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Board") is a board created under ~30I of The Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law (72 P.S. ~5453.30I), which is authorized to assess and value real property for the purpose of taxation in counties of the Fourth Class and to hear appeals from said assessments by aggrieved parties. 4. The Cumberland County Assessment Office assessed the property in the year 2004 in the amount of$3,9E,91O. 5. The Property was described for the 2004 tax year on the official records of Cumberland County, as follows: Parcel No. I3-11-0270-04:! Description Land Assessment $2,047,430 1.368.780 Improvements -2. WAYNEF. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Total $3,416,210 42-11-0272-132 $352,530 145.170 $497,700 $3,913,910 Land Improvements Total Combined Total 6. On June 11,2004, Appellant duly appealed the 2004 assessments to the Board for reduction of the assessment. Copies of the Assessment Appeals are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B". 7. Lower Allen Township and West Shore school district ordered an appraisal of the Property in 2004. 8. They engaged Laurence A. Hirsh ("Hirsh") who is widely regarded as a specialist in appraising golf courses. 9. Hirsh is the only such specialist of whom Appellant is aware who is a specialist in golf course valuations in Pennsylvania. -3- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 170]3 10. Appellant gave Hirsh unrestricted access to the Property and to all of the financial records of the business. II. On January 4, 2005, counsel for Appellant made written request upon the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township for a copy of the Hirsh appraisal. 12. By return letter of January 10, 2005, the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township stated that he "expected the appraisal will be completed within the next few days" and that "we will provide you a copy of the appraisal as soon as it has been prepared". 13. In his letter of January 10,2005, the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township also requested a copy of Appellant's appraisal of the Property. 14. By return letter the next day, counsel for Appellant advised the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township, as follows: Where Mr. Hirsh evidently holds himself out as a specialist in the valuation of golf courses, our thinking has been that we would like to see what his bottom line and methodology are to see whether or not we would have a substantial dispute bdore expending substantial sums of money for an appraisal which we would think would be of questionable value. -4. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 After we have had an opportunity to fI~view the appraisal of Mr. Hirsh, we will certainly advise you ofthl~ approach that we will take if we will b,~ disputing the valuation by Mr. Hirsh. Therefore, anything that YOIl can do to get the appraisal of Mr. Hirsh to us as soon as possible would be very much appreciated. 15. When Appellant had not received a copy of the Hirsh appraisal by January 28, 2005, counsel for Appellant sent a follow-up letter to the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township inquiring as 10 when the appraisal would be available. 16. The hearing before the Board was scheduled for August 9, 2005. 17. When Appellant had received neither a copy of the Hirsh appraisal nor a response to the letter of January 28,2005, by June 16,2005, wunsel for Appellant sent a second follow-up letter requesting a copy of the Hirsh appraisal immediately. 18. The only response that Appellant received to the second follow-up letter of June 16,2005, was a letter of July 14,2005, from the Solicitor of Lower Allen Township which covered a copy of the Hirsh appraisal to Appellant with a copy to the Chief Tax Assessor of Cumberland County. -5- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania ]7013 19. The cover letter from the Solicitor of Lower Allen Township to the Board indicates that the Board received a copy of the Hirsh appraisal at the same time that Appellant received it. 20. The date of the more than 100 page Hirsh appraisal was January 21, 2005. 21. Appellant believes and therefore avers that Lower Allen Township received the Hirsh appraisal on or about January 21, 2005. 22. Appellant believes and therefore avers that the Interested Parties had the Hirsh appraisal for nearly six months before disclosing it to Appellant and filing it with the Board. 23. On July 20, 2005, Appellant advised the Intt:rested Parties in writing that Appellant would accept the Hirsh appraisal without qualification. 24. On August 3, 2005, six days before the scheduled hearing before the Board, Appellant received notice from Lower Allen and the West Shore School District that they -6. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 were withdrawing the Hirsh appraisal and that they would not be calling Mr. Hirsh to testifY at the hearing before the Board on August 9, 2005. 25. As indicated in the letters of January 11,2005, and July 20,2005, Appellant had not engaged its own appraiser because Appellant was waiting to see the promised Hirsh appraisal to which Appl~llant promptly agreed after its belated disclosure to Appellant. 26. Immediately upon receipt of notice of the withdrawal of the Hirsh appraisal, counsel for Appellant spoke with Mr. Hirsh, but Mr. Hirsh stated that he would not discuss his appraisal with Appellant or testifY for Appellant without the approval of his clients. 27. By fax at 10:13 A.M. on that same day, to the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township, counsel for Appellant requested that the Township authorize Mr. Hirsh to speak with counsel for Appellant and to testifY on behalf of Appellant at the hearing before the Board on August 9, 2005. -7- WAYNEF. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania ]7013 28. At 2:20 P.M. on the Friday afternoon before the August 9, 2005, hearing before the Board, the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township told counsel for Appellant, in writing, that counsel for Appellant would not be permitted to spl:ak with Mr. Hirsh. 29. At the hearing before the Board on August 9,2005, counsel for Appellant made the Board aware of the foregoing and requested a continuance for the reason that, until six days before the hearing. Appellant was relying on the Interested Parties' producing Mr. Hirsh at the hearing before the Board and Appellant's being able to ask him questions about his appraisal. 30. The request for a continuance was summarilly denied. 31. At the hearing before the Board on August 9, 2005, counsel for Appellant also requested an adverse inference in view of the late withdrawal of the Hirsh appraisal which the Board had already seen. .8- WAYNEF.SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 32. After the hearing on August 9,2005, the Board issued its Decision Orders ("Decision") dated September 2, 2005, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "c" and "D". 33. This Petition is timely presented within thirty days from the mailing date of the Decision. 34. The most valuable improvement on the property consists of a golf course. 35. It is particularly difficult to find appraisers who will appraise golf courses due to the almost complete lack of comparable sales and due to the fact that many golf courses are private, nonprofit e~;tablishments which do not lend themselves to comparable income approach analyses. 36. Appellant will need at least ninety days to engage an appraiser and have the appraisal completed. -9. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 37. Appellant is aggrieved by the Decision of the Board, and the assessment ofthe Property is unfair, unreasonable and excessive in the following specific respects: (a) By the refusal of the Interested Parties to make timely disclosure of the Hirsh appraisal as promised; (b) By the refusal of the Board to grant a continuance in view of the late withdrawal of the Hirsh appraisal; (c) By the refusal of the Board to make an adverse inference in view of the late withdrawal of the Hirsh appraisal; (d) The assessment is neither equal nor uniform with respect to other properties similarly situated in Cumberland County; (e) There is a complete lack ofunifonnity in the assessment of real estate within Cumberland County which makes the property assessment unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory; (t) The Property consists primarily of a golf course which has limited transferability into other uses; and (g) Other such reasons as will be developed at the time ofthe hearing herein. -10- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 170\3 WHEREFORE, Appellant's, being aggrieved by the assessment of the Board, files this Petition for Appeal and requests that this Honorable Court decide the appeal and decrease the assessmen: ofthe Property to such amount as may be just and proper. Date: September 28, 2005 Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Wayne F. Shade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pl:nnsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Appellant -11- CUMBERLAND- COUNTY' ,ASSESSMENT APPEAL - COMMERCIAL I iNDUSTRIAL Under the provisions of law any pe<SOIl. aggrieved by any assessment desiring to appeal shaI file, a stateinent, In writing, wiih the Board of Assessmeot Appeals on or beIo~ . Such statemOnI shaJI designata the assessment appaaled from and the ad<hss \0 which the Board shaft mail1lOlice 01 when and where 10 appear lor a heamg, No appeal shan be heard by \he boanI 001_ eppellant shall first II8Iia filed \he appeal and required documents on or before ...lIet forth by laW. (")includas IalCing distrids Record Owner(s) Name 'LFGC, Inc. Address P.O. Box 1229 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1229 Site Location of Property Subject of Appeal: 3804, Lis burn Road Number SIr..., 13-11-0270-042 Mecnanicsburg Lower.Allen Township 767 ,889 ~8""""" 1 ;1h~.7AO imprnvpmpnts 2,136,669 Total ~ors Tax Map Identification II: Assessment Appealed 3,416,210' Date Purchased t998 State reasonS for filing this appeal: Cumberland' County golf course Opinion of Maricet Value of lhis Property Purchase Price. 799,120 , Amount of Fire Insurance N/ A Golf course land is assessed at: 2.7,times the average land (per acre). RECEI'JED, Property Type: Check and ,Cclmpfete Ptoper ClasSifICation: ' X Co~roial: Use (;olfcotirse, (CY) , Gross Square Fl 8,2.18 acres Owner Oocupled , , lft.ea.sed: Annua.1 Rent 375,000* 'Gross Square Ft. Owner OCcupied , If Leased: AnnuaJ Rent , 'Square A~ Rentable Area , TennantOocupied' Yes DateConstruc\ed 2002-2003 Square Fl Rentable Area Tenant Occupled 'Date Coilstrucled OffICe: Industrial: TotaJSquare Fl ,Square Fl RentableArea Square A. Plant Area Owner OccupIed Tenant OCcupied If Leased: Annual Rent Lease Type: Net~ Gross _ Combination _ Date ~ed Use , " OtIler: Gross Square Ft Owner Occupled TeOai'it Occupied If Leased: AnnuaJ Rent , , Dil!e ~ed -AnACH LAST 3 YEARS INCOME. EXPENSE STATEMENTS oR COMPlETETHE ATTACHED INcOMlSlo;"SPENSE FOR.... , Cer\!licate of Appeal Vwe hereby decjtam my/our intentiol\to appeal from tt>ell8aRsssd valuation of the P<<1i>ertY de$<:fIblid'llIJove and do he~ wrily \hal the statements made In this ~_true and conect.l undelSl8l\d Ihat IaIse slalement$"lMlminare made sub/eCltO the perialUlll! of 18 Pa. c.s.Sectionl::1eIldi~.' ,nur;:om.,. ~WsificationtOauthot1!i9l!.6,1:,n/~ ' ' SigiIed: /60' ,~--:- " ." '. " oUte: Presldent, LFGC", Inc., ,.. , 'Owner(s) 01 RecOrd , PI1<l!)e f:(tlO<tl8) . (Day~) (71'7)763-1333 . ' . All notices Of t\leSe. prQCeedi~ sI1aIl be ~ to: Name: LFte; , lric. P.O. Box 1229 Camp Bill, PA 17001-1229 Addfess:. (OVER) EXHIBIT "A" CUMBERLAND'COUNTY ,ASSESSMENT APPEAL - COMMERCIAL I iNDUSTRIAL Under the provisions of law arrf person. aggrielled by any assessment desiring to appeaJ shallile a statement, In writing, wiih the Board of !>sss 5 T""!l Appeals 01\ or beIoro .Such stalemOOt shaD designate the assessment appealed from and the addnlss to which the Board shall mail notice of when and where to appear for a hearing, No appeal shan be heard by the bo8nI unless appellant shall first have filed the appeal and required documents on or before , as Set forth by law. (jindudes tal<ing diStricts LFGC, Inc. P.O. Box 1229 Record Owner(s) Name Address Camp Hill, PA 17001-1229 Site Location 01 Property Subject 01 Appeal: 3804 Lisburn Road Mechanicsburg Upper Allen Township Number Street BoroITownshlp AssessorS Tax Map Identification II: 42-ll ~0272-132 145,170'- Improve. 132,217-Land AssessmentAppealed $ 497,700' OpinionofMarketValueoftlhisProperty $ 277,387 Totd Date Purchased 1998 Purchase Price, $ 57,235 Amount 01 Fire Insurance N/ A Stat . " forl'I' ' !hI appeal' Golf. course land is assessed, at 2. 7 times the average e reasons IIn9 s: .., Cumberland County golf course limd (per acre) Property'JWle: Check and.~ Proper CIasSlfication: X cio~rcial: Use Golf Course (CY) GrosS Square Fl 14. 15 acres OWner OcCupied If Leased: Annual Rent 375,000* . Gross Square Ft. Owner OCCupied If Leased: Annual Rent . Squal>ll R. Rentable Nea Tennant Occupied Yes Date Constructed' 2002'- 2003 Square Fl Rentable Area Tenant 00CUpIed 'Date Coi1structed Office: " TolaISquare Fl . Square Fl RentableNea Square Fl Plant Area Owner 00CUpIed Tenant Occupied If Lea.'led: Annual Rent Lease Type: Net ~ Gross _ Combination ~ Date ConslnJcled OtIier: Use , Industrial: Gross Square Fl Owner Occupied Tetlarit Occupied If lea$ed: Annual Rent. . ,.,' ~e (~eif "ATTACH LAST 3 YEARS'INCOME & EXPENSE STATEMENTS OR COMPlETETttE ATTACHED INCoM~!'i.EXPENSE FOR.... . CertIfIcate of Appeal IIwe heteby cie<:lam myfour Intention to &ppeIII from thelllls a SS.B d valuation of the plQjlet1y describedabow and do hell)by wrify that the statements made In Ills ~are ltue and correct. I undi>rsWid that false staI~'~,! are madesUbjectto the perialti8$ of 18 Pa C.$. Section 4904, fllr1:' to unsworn falsification to aulhoriIies.' . . Signed: lhf.'~. '______ ....... .' Date: 6/11/04 . Presi eat; LFGC, Inc. . .' , PhO!16 It: (1-10111") . '0Wner($) of Reccird . ... . . AD ~ Of tf1eSe.~i~~ 6tlaI1 be mai~ to: Name: LFGC" he. AddresS: P.O.' Box 1229" . Camp'Hill, PA 17001-1229 (DeyK)flia.) (717)763':"1333' Offlce Use Fee EXl{IBIT "B" (()VER) Sap 26 2005 12:08PM HP LASERJET 3200 p.l Cumberla County Board of Assessment ppeals Old Courtho e One Courtho se Square Carlisle, PA 7013 (717) 240.6350 (717) 240.6354 (fax) _of Apputs Lloyd W. Bucher R. Fred Hefelflnger Sarah Hughes BONNIE M. MAHONEY We( _lOr STEPHEN D. TILEY ,,"_"15011_ DECISION OR MAlLIN DATE: September 2, 2005 PARCEL NUMBER: 13-11-0270-042. LFGC, INCOR PO BOX 1229 CAMP HILL PA This letter is to clally notify you of the, decision of the Cumberlan County Board of Assessment Appeals regarding the a \Ill-referenced parcel. HEARING: 08/0912005 RENDERED: 09(02r.~OO5 TAX YEAR: [ ] Withdrawn By Applicant [ ] Aband'Jned For Failure To Appea [X] Denieel. No Change [] Approved Review Appraiser's C [] Revised Assessment Besed on H [] Other: Old Assessed Vue: New Assessed lue: 3,416,210 3,416,210 CLEAN AND GREEN STATUS TOTAL VALUE FAIR MARKET Any person agg Pleas by filing a ved by the order of Ih e Board of Assessment ~ appeal to the Court of Common etnlon In the Prothonotary's office on or before Itober 3, 2005. EXHIBIT "e" Sep 26 2005 12:08PM HP LA5ERJET 3200 p.2 Cumberla County Board of Assessment Old Courtho e One Courtho e Square Carlisle. PA 7013 peals (717) 240-6350 (717) 240-6354 (fax) Bolrdof_... tAppals Uayd W. Bucher R. Fred l-Welfl"ller Sarah Hughes BONNIE M. MAHONEY Chief A...._ STEPHEN D. TILEY ANlsIJInt _/lor DECISION OR ER MAILING DATE: September 2, 2005 PARCEL NUMBER: 42.11-0272.132. 7001 I I I I iclally notify you of the, decision of the cumbet1an~ County Board of Assessment Appeals &-referenced parcel. LFGC, INCORP PO BOX 1229 CAMP HIU PA RATED This letter 16 to regarding the HEARING: 0810912005 RENDERED: 09/021:<'005 TAX YEAR: DECISION RE [] Withdr;awn By Applicant [ ] Abandoned For Failure To Appea [X) Denied - No Change [] Approved Review Appralse(s Cha ges [) Revised Assessment Based on H ng [] Other: Old Ass8Slled V ue: New Assessed lue: 497,700 497,700 ~t~'" NOT APPLI LE CLEAN AND GREEN STATUS TOTAL VALUE FAIR MARKET Any parson agg ved by the OI"der of th e Board of Assessment ma appesl to the Court of Common Pleas by fding a etttlon in the Prothonotary's office on or before 0 bar 3, 2005. EXHIBIT "D" ~ ~ "r~ ~ .-..l s _. ~ 0\ '-!"I ~ ....> ~ "'" ~ <.f' (/) ~:n n rn C(\\-- ~',:"1 r'<) :::J,i]1 y~~? CP C,~(~) -r---;-' ...., ::,~~:'J -,. >-,(J. i~~\n - ::::, !'-) ~ W ;-<; - ." LFGC, INC., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. -::- ": '""' ~\ ~J U .' 'l:':~:;: " .~ ...~, CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESS!'vrENT APPEALS, Appellee : NO. 05- 50 7f CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL AND NOW, this '1 ORDER OF COURT ()~ day of , 2005, Appellant is given 7 () _ days to obtain an appraisal of the properties in question, and a ~ hearing on the within Pdition for Appeal is scheduled for the ~ day of f~d:--_' 200~, at 8:)(; A.M. in Courtroom No. ~ of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Byth J. ~ne F. Shade, Esquire, Attorney for Appellant WAYNE F. SHADE award L. Schorpp, Esquire, Solicitor, Cumberland County ~ Attorn'yatL,w even P. Miner, Esquire, Solicitor, Lower Allen Township 53 West Pomfret Street Catli,". P,nn"J"ni, lYI'flliam E. Miller, Jr., Esquire, Solicitor, Upper Allen Township 17013 ndrew J. Blady, Esquire, Solicitor, West Shore School District (. xcg \t/\) 1'/"-' /\.L\J ;'. "';'r'~nJ 18 :8 Hd +j- JJQ ~OOl A'V'rlJ.'O'"'' 'I" , -" 11 :10 u v. J;~'Jri"i..',)~~U:JJU. 3~)lj~()-C3lJ:l WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 WestPornfretStreet Carlisle, Pennsylvania 170B LFGC, INC., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee : NO. 05-j1J7f CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWN"SHlP, LOWER ALLEN TO\\ NSHIP, and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Partie:, : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL PETITION FOR APPEAL AND NOW, thi, 28th day of September, 2005, come LFGC, INC. ("Appellant"), by and through its attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and files the following Petition for Appeal, and, in support thereof, avers, as follows: 1. LFGC, INC. is the record owner of a recreation complex known as Liberty Forge which is located at 3804 Lisbum Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 ("Property"). The Property is identified in the Cumberland County assessment records as Parcel No. 13-11-0270-042 in Lower Allen Township, and Parcel No. 42-11-0272-132 in Upper Allen Township. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 2. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and the WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT are the taxing bodies who are interested in the taxable status of the Property. The MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT bas not intervened in these proceedings. 3. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Board") is a board created under ~301 of The Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law (72 P.S. ~5453.30I), which is authorized to assess and value real property for the purpose of taxation in counties of the Fourth Class and to hear appeals from said assessments by aggrieved parties. 4. The Cumberland County Assessment Office assessed the property in the year 2004 in the amount of$3,9E,91O. 5. The Property was described for the 2004 tax year on the official records of Cumberland County, as follows: Parcel No. 13-11-0270-042 Description Land Assessment $2,047,430 1.368.780 Improvements -2- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Total $3,416,210 42-11-0272-13:! Land $352,530 145.170 $497,700 $3,913,910 Improvements Total Combined Total 6. On June II, 2004, Appellant duly appealed the 2004 assessments to the Board for reduction of the assessment. Copies of the Assessment Appeals are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B". 7. Lower Allen Township and West Shore school district ordered an appraisal of the Property in 2004. 8. They engaged Laurence A. Hirsh ("Hirsh") who is widely regarded as a specialist in appraising golf courses. 9. Hirsh is the only such specialist of whom Appellant is aware who is a specialist in golf course valuations in Pennsylvania. -3- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 10. Appellant gave Hirsh unrestricted access to the Property and to all of the financial records of the business. 11. On January 4, 2005, counsel for Appellant made written request upon the Solicitor for Lower Allen Townsbip for a copy of the Hirsh appraisal. 12. By return letter of January 10, 2005, the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township stated that he "expected the appraisal will be completed within the next few days" and tbat "we will provide you a copy of the appraisal as soon as it has been prepared". 13. In his letter of January 10, 2005, the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township also requested a copy of Appellant's appraisal of the Property. 14. By return letter the next day, counsel for Appellant advised the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township, as follows: Where Mr. Hirsh evidently holds himself out as a specialist in the valuation of .solf courses, our thinking has been that we would like to see what his bottom line and methodology are to see whether or not we would have a substantial dispute before expending substantial sums of money for an appraisal which we would think would be of questionable value. -4- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 After we have had an opportunity to review the appraisal of Mr. Hirsh, we will certainly advise you of the approach that we will take if we will b\~ disputing the valuation by Mr. Hirsh. Therefore, anything that YOII can do to get the appraisal ofMr. Hirsh to us as soon as possible would be very much appreciated. 15. When Appellant had not received a copy of the Hirsh appraisal by January 28, 2005, counsel for Appellant sent a follow-up letter to the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township inquiring as 10 when the appraisal would be available. 16. The hearing before the Board was scheduled for August 9, 2005. 17. When Appellant had received neither a copy of the Hirsh appraisal nor a response to the letter of January 28, 2005, by June 16,2005, counsel for Appellant sent a second follow-up letter requesting a copy of the Hirsh appraisal immediately. 18. The only response that Appellant received to the second follow-up letter of June 16,2005, was a letter of July 14,2005, from the Solicitor of Lower Allen Township which covered a copy of the Hirsh appraisal to Appellant with a copy to the Chief Tax Assessor of Cumberland County. -5- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlis]e, Pennsylvania ]7013 19. The cover letter from the Solicitor of Lower Allen Township to the Board indicates that the Board received a copy of the Hirsh appraisal at the same time that Appellant received it. 20. The date of the more than 100 page Hirsh appraisal was January 21, 2005. 21. Appellant believes and therefore avers that Lower Allen Township received the Hirsh appraisal on or about January 21,2005. 22. Appellant believes and therefore avers that the Interested Parties had the Hirsh appraisal for nearly six months before disclosing it to Appellant and filing it with the Board. 23. On July 20, 2005, Appellant advised the Interested Parties in writing that Appellant would accep1 the Hirsh appraisal without qualification. 24. On August 3, 2005, six days before the scheduled hearing before the Board, Appellant received notice from Lower Allen and the West Shore School District that they -6- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carli$fe,Pcnnsylvania 17013 were withdrawing the Hirsh appraisal and that they would not be calling Mr. Hirsh to testify at the hearing before the Board on August 9,2005. 25. As indicated in the letters of January 11,2005, and July 20, 2005, Appellant had not engaged its own appraiser because Appellant was waiting to see the promised Hirsh appraisal to which Appdlant promptly agreed after its belated disclosure to Appellant. 26. Immediately upon receipt of notice of the withdrawal of the Hirsh appraisal, counsel for Appellant sJoke with Mr. Hirsh, but Mr. Hirsh stated that he would not discuss his appraisal with Appellant or testify for Appellant without the approval of his clients. 27. By fax at 10:13 A.M. on that same day, to the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township, counsel for Appellant requested that the Township authorize Mr. Hirsh to speak with counsel for Appellant and to testify on behalf of Appellant at the hearing before the Board on August 9, 2005. -7- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Stred Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 28. At 2:20 P.M. on the Friday afternoon before the August 9, 2005, hearing before the Board, the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township told counsel for Appellant, in writing, that counsel for Appellant would not be permitted to speak with Mr. Hirsh. 29. At the hearing before the Board on August 9, 2005, counsel for Appellant made the Board aware of the foregoing and requested a continuance for the reason that, until six days before the hearing. Appellant was relying on the Interested Parties' producing Mr. Hirsh at the hearing before the Board and Appellant's being able to ask him questions about his appraisal. 30. The request for a continuance was summarily denied. 31. At the hearing before the Board on August 9, 2005, counsel for Appellant also requested an adverse inference in view of the late withdrawal of the Hirsh appraisal which the Board had already seen. -8- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 32. After the hearing on August 9,2005, the Board issued its Decision Orders ("Decision") dated Sep1ember 2,2005, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and "D". 33. This Petition is timely presented within thirty days from the mailing date of the Decision. 34. The most valuable improvement on the property consists of a golf course. 35. It is particularly difficult to find appraisers who will appraise golf courses due to the almost complete lack of comparable sales and due to the fact that many golf courses are private, nonprofit e,.tablishments which do not lend themselves to comparable income approach analyses. 36. Appellant will n\~ed at least ninety days to engage an appraiser and have the appraisal completed. -9- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 We3\ Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 37. Appellant is aggrieved by the Decision of the Board, and the assessment of the Property is unfair, unreasonable and excessive in the following specific respects: (a) By thf refusal of the Interested Parties to make timely disclosure of the Hirsh appraisal as promised; (b) By the refusal of the Board to grant a continuance in view of the late withdrawal of the Hirsh appraisal; (c) By thf refusal of the Board to make an adverse inference in view of the late withdrawal of the Hirsh appraisal; (d) The assessment is neither equal nor uniform with respect to other propertks similarly situated in Cumberland County; (e) There is a complete lack of uniformity in the assessment of real estate within Cumberland County which makes the property assessment unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory; (f) The Property consists primarily of a golf course which has limited transferability into other uses; and (g) Other such reasons as will be developed at the time of the hearing herein. -10- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomtret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 WHEREFORE, Appellant's, being aggrieved by the assessment of the Board, files this Petition for Appeal and requests that tbis Honorable Court decide the appeal and decrease the assessmem of the Property to such amount as may be just and proper. Date: September 28, 21)05 Respectfully submitted, tV'~ ~~ Wayne F. Shade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Appellant -11- CUMBERLAND COUNTY' ASSESSMENT APPEAL - COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL Under the provisions of law any person' aggrieved by any assessment desiring to aWeaJ shall file a stalement, i1 writing, wiih the Board of ,. sse, ,ment Appeals on or before . Such statement shall designale the assessmenl appealed from and the address 10 which the Board shall mailootice of when and where 10 appear lor a hearing. No appeal shall be heard by the bo8rd unles$ appellant shall first haVe filed lhe appeal and requlred documents on or before . as set forth by law'. (") includes taJcing districts LFGC, Inc. P.O. Box 1229 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1229 Record Owner(s) Name Address Site location of Property Subject of Appeal: 3804 Lis burn Road Number Street Mechanicsburg Lower Allen Township 767, 889 ~.r"'""4' 1 ;1.AR 7,Rn imprnvprnt::>nts 2,136,669 Total Ass~sors Tax Map Identification it: 13- 11-02 70-042 Assessment Appealed 3,416,21 0 . Date Purchased 1.998 State reasons for filing this appeal: .Cumberland County golf course land (per acre). Opinion of Market Value of this Property Purchase Price. 799, 120 Amount of Fire Insurance N/ A Golf course land is assessed at 2.7.times the average RECEIveD Property Type: Check andCc!mplete Proper Classlfic:atkm: X COmmElrcial:' UseG6lfcourse. (CY) . Gross Square Fl 82.18 acres Owner OCCUpied . If Leased: Annual Rent 375,000* . Gross Square Ft. Owner Occupied . If leased: Annual Rent Square A: Rentable Area Yes Tennant Occupied. Date Constl'1JC\ed . 2002-2003 Office: Square Ft. Rentable Area Tenant Occupied . Date COilstructed lndustrial: Total Square Ft. . Square Ft. Rentable Area Square Fl Plant Area Owner OccupIed Tenant Occupied If leased: Annual Rent Lease Type: Net ~ Gross _ Combination _ Date COnstructed Use , OtIier: Gross Square Fl Owner Occupied Terlarit Oocupled If leased: Annual Rent. . . . D~e COnStructed MATTACH LAST 3 YEARS INCOME & EXPENSE STATEMENTS OR COMPLETE THE ATTACHED INcOMe;"ECPENSE FORM" . . . . . . CeltIfiC8te of Appetd Vwe hereby dedare my/our Intention to appeaIlrom 1he'88a eSse d valuation of the property described abo'Ie and.do hereby wrify that the statements made i1 this appeaJ-are true Bild conect. I unoorstalid that faJse staI~lS'lMirein are made ~.tO the perialties of 18 Pa. c~ Section ~: flllali~ unsworn. '.. faJsKication. 10 authonties.. . . .. '.' . . . Signed: #3'~~... . Qate:6fil/04 President, LFGC, Inc. . . . Pho!1e I#: (Home) (DeyIOfl\ce) '. (717)763-1333 . Owner{.) of RecOrd All notices of these prcx:eedillgs S/laII be mailed to: Name: LFGC, . Iric. Add~: P.O. Box 1229 Camp Hill, PA 17001-1229 EXHIBIT "A" (OVER) CUMBERLAND COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL - COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL Under the provisions of law any person' aggrieved by any assessment desiring to appeal shaI file a statement, i1 writing, wiih the Board of J'Sl;S 5 S .lent Appeals on or befaro . Such statement shaD designate the assessmentappeaJed from and the addnlss to which the Board shall mail notice of when and where to appear lor a hearing. No appeal shan be heard by the bo8rd unless appellant shall first have filed \he appeal and required documents on or belOro . as $et forth by law. (') includes taxing districts LFGC, Inc. P.O. Box 1229 Record Owner(s) Name Address Camp Hill, PA 17001-1229 Site Location of Property Subject of Appeal: 3804 Lisburn Road Mechanicsburg Upper Allen Tmmship Number Street Borofrownship ~sorsTax Map Identification #: 42-11~0272-132 145, nO-Improve. 132,217-Land Assessment Appealed $ 497,700 . Opinion of Market Value of this Property $ 277,387 Tot21 Date Purchased 1998 Purchase price. $ 57,235 Amount of Fire Insurance N/ A Stat '. rf'I' . thl al Golf course land is assessed at 2. 7 times the average e reasons ,0 ling s appe : . Cumberland County golf course land (per acre) Property 1ype: Check and~pIete Proper ClasSifICatiOn: X COmlTl!lrcial: Use Golf Course (Cn Gross Square Ft 14. 15 acres Owner Occupied . If Leased: Annual Rent 375,000* Squale Ft. Rentable Area Tennant Occupied Yes DateConstructed 2002'-2003 Square Ft Rentable Area Tenant Occupied . Date COilstructed Office: Gross Square Ft. OWner OCCupied If leased: Annual Rent Industrial: Tota/Square Ft . Square Ft RentabfeArea Square R. Plant Area Owner OccupIed Tenant OccupIed If Leased: Annual Rent Lease Type: Net_ Gross _ Combination _ Date Constructed Use , OlIier: Gross Square Ft Owner Occupied Terlant Occupied If Leased: Annual Rent. . .... ~e COnStructed "ATTACH LAST 3 YEARs INCOME & EXPENSE STATEMENtS OR COMPLETE THE ATTACHED INCOM~!<'EXPENSE FORM" Certificate of Appeal IIwe hereby dectaro my(our Intention to appeal from the'i1sses$ed valuation of the projlerty cleScrib8d abow anddo hereby verify that the statements made i1 this appeal.are true and. correct. I unoolStatld that IaIse statemenlShtiri;in are made subject to the penalt1es of 18 Pa ~~~:;on~rol!f27"~~ Date: ".6/11/04 . Presi ent; LFGC, '. Inc. . PhOf,Kl #: iliome) . . Owner(s) of RecOrd . . All notices of \tJeSe. prQCe6dil,lgs Shall be mailed to; Name: LFGC. tnc. Address: P.O. Box f229". ~~) (717)763-133) OffIce Use only . 1Fe8 . '1 Camp' Hill, PA 17001-1229 EXIUBIT "B" (OVER) Sep 26 2005 12:08PM HP LA~ERJET 3200 p.l Cumberla County Board of Assessment ppeals Old Courtho e One Courtho sa Square Carlisle. PA 7013 (717) 240-6350 (717) 240-6354 (fax) _ of.us 'AppNts Lloyd W. Bucher R. Fred Hefelf'lII\ler Saral'l Hllllllee BONNIE M. I4AHONEY CIIIe( As..."r STEPHEN D. riLEY Ass_"' 5011c1tDr DECISION OR ER MAlLIN DATE: September 2. 2005 PARCEL NUMBER: 13-11-O27()'()42. LFGC, INCOR PO BOX 1229 CAMP HILL PA This leller Is to clally notify you of thE' decision of the Cumberlanb County Board of Assessment Appeals I regarding the a 'Ill.referenced parcel. HEARING: 0810912005 RENDERED: 091021<:005 TAX YEAR: [ J Withdrawn By Applicant 1\ Abandoned For Failure To Appea [Xl Deniecl - No Change [] Approved Rel/iew Appraiser's C gas [] Revised Assessment Based on Haring [ ] Other: I TOTAL VALUE FAIR MARKET CLEAN CLEAN AND GREEN STATUS Old Assessed Vue: New Assessed lue: 3,416.210 3,416,210 Any person a\lg Pleas by filing a I/ed by the order of the Board of Assessment ~ appeal to the Court of Common etillon in the Prothonotary's office on or before ltober 3, 2005. I EXHIBIT "e" Sep 26 2005 12: 08PM HP LA'!',ERJF.:T 3200 p.2 BOlW'dofA....sm Lloyd W. Bucher R. Fred Helelnnger Sarah Hughes I County Board of Assessment ~ppealS e e Square 7013 (717) 240-6350 (717) 240-6354 (fax) Cumberla Old Courtho One Courtho Carlisle, PA t Appeo" BONNIE M. MAHONEY ClNfA......... SrEPHEN D. TILEY A..lstont SolIcItor DECISION OR ER MAILING DATE: September 2, 2005 PARCEL NUMBER: 42-11-0272-132. LFGC, INCORP RATED PO BOX 1229 CAMP HILL PA 7001 Dear Property DATE OF APP DATE DECISI EFFECTIVE FO icielly notify you of the. decision of the CUmberlan~ County Board of Assessment Appeals e-i'eferenced parcel. This letter Is to regarding the a HEARING: 0810912005 RENDERED: 09/02/:1005 TAX YEAR: DECISION REN ERED: , [ ] Withdr;3WO By Applicant J [ ] Abandoned For Failure To App [X) Denied - No Change [ ] Approved Review Appraiser's Cha ges [] Revised Assessment Based on H1artng [] Other: FAIR MARKET CLEAN D GREEN CLEAN AND GREEN STATUS TOTAL VALUE Old Assessed V ue: New Assessed lue: 497,700 497,700 NOT APPUdABLE Any person aoo Pleas by filing a ved by the order of lh e Board of Assessment ma appeal to the Court of Common et~lon In the Prothono'lery's office on or before arOber 3, 2005. ! EXHIBIT "D" ~~~ ~ ~ -. s E;"- "\ u;- ~) ~ "', = c::::'I CoY' en (", '.! ~ ~~ rn-~ ,- --o.n -i.j I.~:J ('~:~ \:~) ?~:;J . .~ ':") C:/-n --1 ':>> :1' -< r~,' C) ....-, 1'." W LFGC, Inc., Appellant, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action - Law NO. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM Civil Division REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOT ARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Interested Party, Lower Allen Townwship, in the above captioned action. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB By: Date: September 30, 2005 337533-1 s""rn~~ Attorney J.D. No. 38901 3211 NDrth Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Appellant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LFGC, Inc., v. Civil Action - Law CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, NO. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM Civil Division v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, thiS? (; day of September, 2005, I, Steven P. Miner, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & ~e., attorney for Interested Party, Lower Allen Township, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Praecipe this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Appellant Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire Solicitor, Cumberland County Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto, P.e. 10 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 William E. Miller, Esquire Solicitor, Upper Allen Township Miller & Associates, P.C. 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, P A 17011-4824 Andrew J. Blady, Esquire Solicitor, West Shore School District Eastburn and Gray, P.e. 60 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901-0137 ~ Steve mer, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERE, P.e. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, P A 17110-0300 337533-1 CJ c_ ~ = C::-.1 "'~ C) :J I .t.- ~ -' :I:-n n"\p :Rl::~;; ; ",J,,) .,.~, '...J :~~\ ~~\ <iJ :..:: co U:> IN THE COURT OF COMMON ,PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA KURT W. MCCABE, Plaintiff, v. No. 04-5531 MANN REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., DAUPHIN DEVELOPMENT CO., AND: ROBERT M. MUMMA, II Defendants. CIVIL ACTION - LAW/EQUITY AP~LANT'SMOTIONFORCONTINU}~CEOFTR~L AND NOW COMES APPELLANT, Kurt W. McCabe, and files this Motion for Continuance of Trial and hereby avers as follows: 1. On September 23, 2005, following a hearing held on September 12, 2005, this Honorable Court entered an order directing that trial be scheduled in the above-captioned matter for October 12, 2005. 2. Shortly after such hearing, Appellant accepted a job offer to start in a new position in Delaware County, Pennsylvania on October 3, 2005. 3. Given that Appellant will be working at the new job for approximately seven (7) working days before being required to take time off to appear at trial in this matter, Appellant does hereby respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant a continuance of sixty (60) days for the trial. 4. Appellant has sought the consent of opposing counsel by telephone at his offices and his cell phone, but has not received a response; therefore, opposing counsel has not consented to this Motion. WHEREFORE, Appellant, Kurt W. McCabe, respectfully requests that a sixty (60) day continuance of trial in this case be granted. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Date~ 2005 By: urt W. McCabe 2004 Gramercy Place Hummelstown, PA 17036 717-418-0901 CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC~ I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Continuance of Trial was served via United States mail, postage pre-paid, upon the following: Kirk S. Sohonage P.O. Box 480 480 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17001-0480 Attorneys for Defendants Dated:~lo"J By: t ~ - ~, \, ~ \ , $0 \ . 1\ LFGC, INC., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Appellee : No. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL RESPONSE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT ApPEALS AND COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND TO PETITION FOR ApPEAL AND NOW, comes the Cumberland CDunty Board of Assessment Appeals and the County of Cumberland, by and through their Solicitor, Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire, and respond to the appeal ofLFGC, Inc., as follows: 1-6. Admitted. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that an appraisal was ordered by the named parties. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining averment, i.e., the date the appraisal was ordered, and the same is therefore denied. 8. Denied. An appraisal was performed by Golf Property Analysts. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as how Mr. Hirsh is regarded and this averment is therefore denied. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. II. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. This information is in the possession of other parties to this appeal. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. This information is in the possession of other parties to this appeal. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. This information is in the possession of other parties to this appeal. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. This information is in the possessiDn of other parties to this appeal. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. This information is in the possession of other parties to this appeal. 16. Admitted. By way of further answer, the hearing had been rescheduled from a hearing date of August 4,2004, and a subsequent hearing date of October 13, 2004. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. This information is in the possession of other parties to this appeal. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. This information is in the possession of other parties to this appeal. 19. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Board of Assessment Appeals received a copy of the appraisal. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments that appellant received a copy Df the appraisal or when it received it, if in fact it was received. The same are therefore denied. 20. Admitted. 2 I. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. This information is in the possession of another party to this appeal. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. This information is in the possession of another party to this appeal. 23. Admitted. 24. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that said parties notified the Board of Assessment Appeals by letter dated August 2, 2005, that they would nDt be presenting the appraisal or testimony in support thereof. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient tD form a belief as to the truth of the averment concerning when appellant received notice and the same is therefore denied. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to appellant's motives or appeal strategies, or when it agreed to accept any appraisal; the truth of these averments are therefore denied. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and the same are therefore denied. This information is within the sole knowledge and possession of appellant. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and the same are therefore denied. This information is in the possession of appellant and another party to this appeal. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and the same are therefore denied. This information is in the possession of appellant and another party to this appeal. 29. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that counsel for Appellant requested a continuance. It is denied that Appellant had good cause for such continuance, as the burden of proof rested with Appellant and it was not lawfully justified in relying upon any other appraisal, it being Appellant's obligation to move forward with its own evidence and appraisal. This hearing was rescheduled twice, the original date being one year earlier, August 4, 2004. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to fDrm a belief as to Appellant's hearing strategy or the lawful basis for such strategy. 30. Denied. The request for continuance was denied following oral argument by the parties. Appellant was thereupon given full liberty to present its case. 31. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that counsel requested the inference. It is denied that Appellant was entitled to such an inference. This averment is a conclusion oflaw requiring no response herein. It is admitted that the Board of Assessment Appeals had seen the appraisal. To the extent inferred in these averments, it is denied that the Board relied upon the appraisal in making its decision. 32. Admitted. 33. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law requiring no answer herein. To the extent answer is required, it is denied that the Appeal Petition is timely under the relevant statutory provisions. 34. Denied. This averment is a conclusion oflaw requiring no answer herein. By way of further response, there are other valuable improvements on the subject tracts. 35. Denied. These averments are conclusions of law requiring no response herein. Further, after reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and the same are therefore denied. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and the same are therefore denied. By way of further response, Appellant has already had more than one year, a reasonably sufficient time, to complete an appraisal. Appellant failed to properly prepare for this matter and unsuccessfully gambled upon permission to use an appraisal prepared for another party, although Appellant had, and now has, the burden of proof. 37. Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph and each of its sub-parts are conclusions oflaw requiring no response herein. By way of further answer, responding parties aver: (a) Denied. Appellant had the burden of proof at all times relevant herein and had no legal basis to rely upon any appraisal performed by another party; (b) Denied. Appellant had in excess of one year, more than sufficient time, to prepare for the hearing and retain expert witnesses as the hearing was continued at least twice since August 4, 2004; (c) Denied. There was no legal basis for the Board of Assessment Appeals to make an adverse inference as the parties were at full liberty to include or not include their appraisal in the defense of the assessments; (d) Denied. The assessment was performed by the assessors in conformity with uniform procedures to the extent that golf courses may be so valued; (e) Denied. The assessment of real estate within the County is performed uniformly to the extent reasonably possible; (f) Denied. RespDnding parties are without information sufficient to form a belief as to other uses for which the property can be transferred. It is believed, and therefore averred, that the property can be readily used for all other uses lawfully permitted under the zoning ordinances ofthe respective townships. (g) Denied. There are no lawful reasons to change the current assessments of the subject parcels. NEWMAITER 38. At all times relevant herein, Appellant had the burden of proof to demonstrate that the assessments of the subject parcels were incorrect or otherwise invalid. 39. Appellant made a strategic decision not to retain an expert appraiser in the hopes of relying upon one prepared for another party. 40. Appellant had more than one year, a more than reasonable time, to retain an appraiser or other experts and prepare his case, but failed to do so because of a hearing strategy which was not founded in law and which, in fact, failed. 41. Appellant should not be granted a "second bite of the apple" by this court, rather the hearing on this appeal should be heard in due CDurse without allowing Appellant additional time to retain and prepare expert witness(es). 42. Appellant, through his own fault, was not prepared to carry his burden before the Board of Assessment Appeals and is not presently prepared to carry his burden in this appeal. WHEREFORE, responding parties, County of Cumberland and Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, request that this appeal be dismissed with prejudice. B ~~-- Edward L. Schorpp, squire PAIDNo.17495 35 South Thrush Drive Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 486-8386 Solicitor for County of Cumberland and Board of Assessment Appeals Date: /0 -..s- -os-- VERIFICATION I, Bonnie Mahoney, Chief Assessor, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, acknowledge that I have the authority to execute this VerificatiDn on behalf of the Board of Assessment Appeals and County of Cumberland and certify that the foregoing Response to Appeal is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of this Response to Appeal is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that this Response to Appeal is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of this Response to Appeal is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. This statement and Verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. c.s. S 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. /:7 .) :J>u,,-,,-~ fJ1KL~r Bonnie Mahoney Chief Assessor Dated: /0/1//0;:'- ~" n c ~ ~~ <8, ':.-I \ <.r\ 'Y ':-:c;:e- .~\ ~~ q.. ~~ -0. r"'\~~ ....';.x~.:; , '. '_:\.(~?, ~' C:')~ ~::'~-i'\ '" ~C:~ :~1 - -;t.'T. .,.., M ':": L" (,.,j LFGC, INC., Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEAL, Appellee, NO: 05-5078 CIVIL TERM Civil Division v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP ~dWESTSHORESCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf ofInterested Party, West Shore School District, in the above captioned action. EAS~~ G\, Pc. BY:~ Andrew J. Blady Attorney J.D. #84354 EASTBURN AND GRAY, P.C. 60 East Court Street P.O. Box 1389 Doylestown, PA 18901-0137 (215) 345-7000 DATE: October 6, 2005 LFGC, INC., Respondent v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEAL, Appellee, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: 05-5078 CIVIL TERM Civil Division REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Andrew 1. Blady, Esquire's Praecipe to Enter Appearance for West Shore School District was sent on this date by first class mail, postage prepaid, to: Steven P. Miner, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & ERB, P.C. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 William E. Miller, Jr., Esquire Miller & Associates, P.C. 1822 Market St. Camp Hill, P A 17011-4824 DATE: October 6, 2005 Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Edward L. Schorpp, Esq. Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 EASTBURN ~N~, P.~: By: r ~ t) '--.) Andrew 1. Blady EASTBURN AND GRAY, P.C. 60 East Court Street P.O. Box 1389 Doylestown, PA 18901-0137 (215) 345-7000 "-, Co";:;:l 0 t;~, u1 -0 --::-' c) :T1 .-: , ' i;;l -"', N " ~...t:; (.1) "", ",:_J 0" , LFGC, Inc., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : Civil Action - Law CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF No. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM ASSESSMENT APPEALS, : CIVIL DIVISION Appellee v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter our appearance for the municipality, Upper Allen Township, in the above captioned matter. Respectfully Submitted, William E. Miller, Jr, Esqui Attorney 10 Number 07. 0 Alicia S, Miller, Es Ire Attorney 10 Num er 82099 Miller & Associates, PC 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4824 (717) 737-9210 Date: 13 October 2005 LFGC, Inc., Appellant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : Civil Action - Law No, 05-5078 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, WilliAM E. MillER, JR., hereby certify that I am a member of the Cumberland County Bar and Township Solicitor for Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, an Interested Party, and that, on 13 October2005, I personally served copies of the Praecipe to Enter Appearance in the above captioned matter by mailing it via U.S. postal service, postage prepaid to: Wayne F, Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellant Andrew J. Blady, Esquire Solicitor, West Shore School District Eastburn and Gray, P.C, 60 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901-0137 Date: 13 October 2005 Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire Solicitor, Cumberland County Martsdon, Deardorff, Williams & Otto, P.C. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Stephen P. Miner, Esquire Solicitor, Lower Allen Township Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C, 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 ~... William E. Miller, Jr, Esquire Miller & Associates, PC 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4824 (717) 737-9210 -.,j ..-:: '!"--) C:,' C:') Cfl c> ~cn ---! ~j-+ en G C-:.' -'r '-:? _J ~~ ,~ Appellant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LFGC, Inc., v. Civil Action - Law CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, NO. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM Civil Division v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL ANSWER TO PETITION FOR APPEAL NOW, this ~y of October, 2005, comes Answering Party, Lower Allen Township, by and through its attorneys, Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.c., and Steven P. Miner, Esquire, and files the following Answer to the Petition for Appeal in support, and thereof avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 337534-1 8. Admitted that Answering Party and West Shore School District engaged Lawrence A. Hirsch to prepare an appraisal. All other averments of Paragraph are denied, and strict proof of same is demanded. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is unable to admit or deny the averments of Paragraph 9, and the averments or deemed denied. 10. Admitted on information and belief. 1 I. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. By way of further answer, Answering Party denies any obligation to provide an appraisal to Appellant, LFGC, Inc. It was always the understanding of Answering Party that there would be an exchange of appraisals. 15. Admitted only that Appellant had requested Answering Party's appraisal. 16. Admitted. By way of further answer, the hearing had been rescheduled from a bearing date of August 4, 2004 and a subsequent date of October 13, 2004. By way of further answer, the docwnent speaks for itself. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted. 22. Admitted. By way of further answer, Answering Party denies any obligation to exchange an appraisal or to provide a copy of same to the Board except according to the Regulations of the Board. 337534-1 23. Admitted. 24. Admitted. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is unable to admit or deny the averments of Paragraph 25, and the averments or deemed denied. 26. Admitted. 27. Admitted. 28. Admitted. 29. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that counsel for Appellant requested a continuance. It is denied that Appellant had good cause for such continuance as the burden of proof rested with Appellant, and it was not justified in relying upon any otber appraisal. Answering Party was within its rights to withdraw its appraisal and not to call its witness. 30. Denied. The request for continuance was denied following argument by the parties. Appellant was thereupon given an opportunity to present its case. 31. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Appellant's counsel requested an adverse inference. It is denied that the Appellant was entitled to such an adverse inference. The averment is a conclusion oflaw requiring no responsive pleading. 32. Admitted. 33. Paragraph 33 is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a pleading is required, it is deemed denied. 34. Admitted in part; denied in part. By way of further answer, it is averred that there are a number of other value improvements on the property including a residence valued at over $600,000.00, a miniature golf course, a restaurant banquet facility and other improvements. 337534-1 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is unable to admit or deny the averments of Paragraph 35, and the averments or deemed denied. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is unable to admit or deny the averments of Paragraph 36, and the averments or deemed denied. 37. Denied. a. Strict proof of same is demanded. b. Strict proof of same is demanded. c. Strict proof of same is demanded. d. Strict proof of same is demanded. e. Strict proof of same is demanded. f. Strict proof of same is demanded. g. Strict proof of same is demanded. WHEREFORE, Answering Party, Lower Allen Township, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny this appeal or, in the alternative, to uphold the decision of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals. Respectfully submitted, ERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. jL-- Steven P.. iner, Esquire J.D. No. 38901 3211 North Front Street P. O. Box 5300 Harrisburg,PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 OctoberU, 2005 337534-1 LFGC, Inc., Appellant, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action - Law NO. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM Civil Division REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~ ~ day of October, 2005, I, Steven P. Miner, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.c., attorney for Interested Party, Lower Allen Township, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Answer this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Attorney for Appellant William E. Miller, Esquire Solicitor, Upper Allen Township Miller & Associates, P.c. 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, P A 17011-4824 337534-1 Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire Solicitor, Cumberland County Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto, P.c. 10 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Andrew J. Blady, Esquire Solicitor, West Shore School District Eastburn and Gray, P.c. 60 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901-0137 ~{/ Steven P. Miner, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.c. 3211 Nofth Front Street P,O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, P A 17110-0300 n .-- "" ~l ~~?I " ~Tl .-4 -r:. ~. ;1 <:::' C' -, .,~ " '? .+:- Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW LFGC, INC., v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEAL, Appellee, NO: 05-5078 CIVIL TERM Civil Division v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ANSWER TO PETITION TO APPEAL 1.-7. Admitted. 8. Admitted that Answering Party and Lower Allen Township engaged Lawrence A. Hirsch to prepare an appraisal. All other averments are strictly denied. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is without sufficient infDrmation from which to admit or deny this averment and it is therefore denied. 10. Denied. Upon information and belief, Appellant refused to give Mr. Hirsch access to the residence located on the property and the residence was therefore never considered in Mr. Hirsch's valuation. 11.-13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is without sufficient information from which to admit or deny these averments and they are therefore denied. 14. Denied as stated. The letter is a writing which speaks for itself. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is without sufficient information from which to admit or deny this averment and it is therefore denied. 16. Admitted. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is without sufficient information from which to admit or deny this averment and it is therefore denied. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is without sufficient information from which to admit or deny this averment and it is therefore denied. 19. Denied as stated. The letter is a writing which speaks for itself. 20. Admitted. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is without sufficient information from which to admit or deny this averment and it is therefore denied. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is without sufficient information from which to admit or deny this averment and it is therefore denied. 23. Admitted. 24. Admitted. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is without sufficient information from which to admit or deny this averment and it is therefore denied. 26. Admitted upon information and belief. 27. Admitted. 28. Admitted. 29. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that counsel for Appellant requested a continuance. It is denied that Appellant had good cause for such continuance as the burden of proof rested with the Appellant and Appellant was not justified in 2 relying on any other appraisal. Answering Party was within its rights to withdraw the appraisal and not to caIl its witness. 30. Denied. The request for continuance was denied foIlowing argument by the parties. Appellant was thereafter given a fuIl opportunity to caIl its witnesses and present its case. 31. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that AppeIlant's counsel requested an adverse inference. It is denied that the AppeIlant was entitled to such an adverse inference. This averment is a conclusion of law requiring no responsive pleading. 32. Admitted. 33. Denied. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required and it is therefore denied. 34. Admitted. By way of further answer, there are a number of other valuable improvements on the property including a residence, miniature golf course, restaurant banquet facility and other improvements. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is without sufficient information from which to admit or deny this averment and it is therefore denied. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Party is without sufficient information from which to admit or deny this averment and it is therefore denied. 37. Denied. This averment and its subparts are strictly denied. WHEREFORE, West Shore School District respectfuIly requests that this Honorable Court deny this appeal. 3 By: DATE: October 17, 2005 4 Respectfully submitted, EASTBURN AND GRAY, P.c. (1s-ru- Andrew J. BIady Attorney J.D. #84354 60 East Court Street P.O. Box 1389 Doylestown, PA 18901-0137 (215) 345-7000 VERIFICATION Andrew 1. Blady, Esquire verifies that he is the attorney for West Shore School District and that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Petition to Appeal are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904 relating to unsworn Q3~ ANDREW J. BLADY, ESQUIRE falsification to authorities. Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW LFGC, INC., v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEAL, Appellee, NO: 05-5078 CIVIL TERM Civil Division v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of West Shore School District's Answer to Petition to Appeal was sent on this date by first class mail, postage prepaid, to: Steven P. Miner, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & ERB, P.C. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-0300 Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 William E. Miller, Jr., Esquire Miller & Associates, P.c. 1822 Market St. Camp Hill, P A 17011-4824 Edward L. Schorpp, Esq. Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 ::STBQ:S;$POCO Andrew J. Blady EASTBURN AND GRAY, P.C. 60 East Court Street P.O. Box 1389 Doylestown, PA 18901-0137 (215) 345-7000 DATE: October I7, 2005 .' , Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LFGC, Inc., v. : Civil Action - Law CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF : No. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM ASSESSMENT APPEAL, : CIVIL DIVISION Appellee v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY LFGC.INC. TO LFGC, INC., APPELLANT: Upper Allen Township joins in the objection to discovery asserted by Lower Allen Township as there is no discovery permitted in a tax assessment appeal absent leave of Court. MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC ?/~ By: William E. Miller, Jr, Esquire Attorney ID Number 07220 Alicia S. Miller, Esquire Attorney ID Number 82099 MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4824 (717) 737-9210 Attorneys for Upper Allen Township Date: 2 "De(C.\fY\O-ek- 05 ...-"' .... LFGC, Inc., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : Civil Action - Law CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF : No. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM ASSESSMENT APPEAL, : CIVIL DIVISION Appellee v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP'S OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY LFGC, INC. TO LFGC, INC., APPELLANT: Upper Allen Township joins in the objection to discovery asserted by Lower Allen Township as there is no discovery permitted in a tax assessment appeal absent leave of Court. MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC Date: 2 Decc1/Y1beY- oS By: c<:';': ~------- William E. Miller, Jr, Esquire Attorney 10 Number 07220 Alicia S. Miller, Esquire Attorney 10 Number 82099 MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4824 (717) 737-9210 Attorneys for Upper Allen Township . LFGC, Inc., Appellant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEAL. Appellee v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : Civil Action - Law : No. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP'S Objections to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Propounded by LFGC, Inc., was sent on 2 December 2005, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to: Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Appellant Andrew J. Blady, Esquire Solicitor, West Shore School District Eastburn and Gray, P.C. 60 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901-0137 Date: 7-.. Vece.vnb-e-V' oS Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire Solicitor, Cumberland County Martsdon, Deardorff, Williams & Otto, P.C. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Stephen P. Miner, Esquire Solicitor, Lower Allen Township Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street P,O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC ~,;;J~ By: c:-...p _ William E. Miller, Jr, Esquire Attorney ID Number 07220 Alicia S. Miller, Esquire Attorney ID Number 82099 MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4824 (717) 737-9210 Attorneys for Upper Allen Township -- .~. \ 1 r.':' - - LFGC, INC., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee : NO. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW, comes LFGC, INC. ("Appellant"), by and through its attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and files the following Motion, and, in support thereof, avers, as follows: I. LFGC, INC. is the record owner of a recreation complex known as Liberty Forge whicb is located at 3804 Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 ("Property"). The Property is identified in the Cumberland County assessment records as Parcel No. 13-11-0270-042 in Lower Allen Township, and Parcel WAYNE F, SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 No. 42-11-0272-132 in Upper Allen Township. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 2. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP and the WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT are the taxing bodies who are interested in the taxable status of the Property. The MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT has not intervened in these proceedings. 3. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Board") is a board created under ~30 1 of The Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law (72 P.S. ~5453.30I), which is authorized to assess and value real property for the purpose of taxation in counties oftbe Fourth Class and to hear appeals from said assessments by aggrieved parties. 4. The Cumberland County Assessment Office assessed the property in the year 2004 in the amount of$3,913,9IO. 5. The Property was described for the 2004 tax year on the official records of Cumberland County, as follows: Parcel No. 13-11-0270-042 Description Land Assessment $2,047,430 1.368.780 $3,416,210 Improvements Total -2- WAYNLF. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 I 42-11-0272-132 Land $352,530 145.170 $497,700 $3,913,910 Improvements Total Combined Total 6. On June 1 I, 2004, Appellant duly appealed the 2004 assessments to the Board for reduction of the assessment. 7. Lower Allen Township and West Shore School District ordered an appraisal of the Property in 2004. 8. They engaged Laurence A. Hirsh ("Hirsh") of Golf Property Analysts who is widely regarded as a specialist in appraising golf courses. 9. Hirsh is the only such specialist of whom Appellant is aware who is a specialist in golf course valuations in Pennsylvania. 10. Appellant gave Hirsh access to the Property and to all of the financial records of the business. -3- WAYNE F. SHADE Attomt:y at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 II. On January 4,2005, counsel for Appellant made written request upon the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township for a copy of the Hirsh appraisal. 12. By return letter of January 10, 2005, the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township stated that he "expected the appraisal will be completed within the next few days" and that "we will provide you a copy of the appraisal as soon as it has been prepared". 13. In his letter of January 10,2005, the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township also requested a copy of Appellant's appraisal of the Property. 14. By return letter the next day, counsel for Appellant advised the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township, as follows: After we have had an opportunity to review the appraisal of Mr. Hirsh, we will certainly advise you of the approach that we will take if we will be disputing the valuation by Mr. Hirsh. Therefore, anything that you can do to get the appraisal of Mr. Hirsh to us as soon as possible would be very much appreciated. -4- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 Wt:st Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 170]3 15. When Appellant had not received a copy of the Hirsh appraisal by January 28, 2005, counsel for Appellant sent a follow-up letter to the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township inquiring as 10 when the appraisal would be available. 16. The hearing before the Board was scheduled for August 9, 2005. 17. When Appellant had received neither a copy of the Hirsh appraisal nor a response to the letter of January 28, 2005, by June 16, 2005, counsel for Appellant sent a second follow-up letter requesting a copy of the Hirsh appraisal immediately. 18. The only response that Appellant received to the second follow-up letter of June 16,2005, was a letter ofJuly 14,2005, from the Solicitor of Lower Allen Township which covered a copy of the Hirsh appraisal to Appellant with a copy to the Chief Tax Assessor of Cumberland County. 19. The cover letter from the Solicitor of Lower Allen Township to tbe Board indicates that the Board received a copy of the Hirsh appraisal at the same time that Appellant received it. -5- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfrel Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 20. The date of the more than 100 page Hirsh appraisal was January 21, 2005. 21. Appellant believes and therefore avers that Lower Allen Township received the Hirsh appraisal on or about January 21,2005. 22. Appellant believes and therefore avers that the Interested Parties had the Hirsh appraisal for nearly six months before disclosing it to Appellant and filing it with the Board. 23. On July 21,2005, Appellant advised the Interested Parties in writing that Appellant would accepl the Hirsh appraisal without qualification. 24. On August 3, 2005, six days before the scheduled hearing before the Board, Appellant received notice from Lower Allen and the West Shore School District that they were withdrawing the Hirsh appraisal and that they would not be calling Mr. Hirsh to testity at the hearing before the Board on August 9, 2005. -6- WAYNE F, SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 I - 25. As indicated in the letter ofJanuary 11,2005, Appellant had not incurred the expense of engaging its own appraiser because Appellant was waiting to see the promised Hirsh appraisal to which Appellant promptly agreed after its belated disclosure to Appellant. 26. Immediately upon receipt of notice of the withdrawal of the Hirsh appraisal, counsel for Appellant spoke with Mr. Hirsh, but Mr. Hirsh stated that he would not discuss his appraisal with Appellant or testifY for Appellant without the approval of his clients. 27. By fax at 10:13 A.M. on that same day, to the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township, counsel for Appellant requested that the Township authorize Mr. Hirsh to speak with counsel for Appellant and to testifY on behalf of Appellant at the hearing before the Board on August 9, 2005. 28. At 2:20 P.M. on the Friday afternoon before the August 9, 2005, hearing before the Board, the Solicitor for Lower Allen Township told counsel for Appellant, in writing, that counsel for Appellant would not be permitted to speak with Mr. Hirsh. -7- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania ]70]3 29. At the hearing before tbe Board on August 9, 2005, counsel for Appellant made the Board aware of the foregoing and requested a continuance for the reason that, until six days before the hearing. Appellant was relying on the Interested Parties' producing Mr. Hirsh at the bearing before the Board and Appellant's being able to ask him questions about his appraisal. 30. The request for a continuance was summarily denied. 31. At the hearing before the Board on August 9, 2005, counsel for Appellant also requested an adverse inference in view of the late withdrawal of the Hirsh appraisal which the Board had already seen. 32. After the hearing on August 9, 2005, the Board issued its Decision Orders ("Decision") dated September 2, 2005, which denied Appellant's appeal. 33. On September 2~, 2005, Appellant filed its Petition for Appeal, of the decision of the Board, to this Court. -8- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 - . 34. A hearing has been scheduled on the appeal before the Honorable Edward E. Guido for Monday, February 6, 2006, at 8:30 A.M. 35. In order to have a reasonably fair opportunity to adequately prepare for the hearing, Appellant issued very limited Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents upon the Interested Parties on October 26, 2005, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 36. Appellants written discovery was propounded under the authority ofPa. R.C.P. 400I(a) which provides the discovery rules apply to any civil action or proceeding (emphasis supplied) brought in or appealed to any court wbich is subject to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 37. Pa. R.C.P. 400 I (a) has been construed to clothe the Court of Common Pleas with the full authority and discretion to permit discovery to aid in the proper disposition of real estate tax assessment appeals. Tanglwood Lakes Community Association v. Pike County Board of Assessment and Revision of Taxes, 164 Pa. Cmwlth. 170,642 A2d 581 (1994). -9- W ^ YNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 . . 38. When Appellant issued the written discovery upon the Interested Parties, Appellant cited to them the decision in Tang/wood Lakes Community Association v. Pike County Board. of Assessment and Revision of Taxes. 39. When Appellant issued the written discovery upon the Interested Parties, Appellant inquired of them, in writing, that they notifY us immediately if they would be maintaining the position that our discovery is not permitted, so that we could address the question for discovery with the court. 40. Appellant believes and therefore avers that the Cumberland County Assessment Office (hereinafter the '"Assessment Office") is not opposed to responding to Appellant's written discovery with 1he understanding that Appellant will provide tbe Assessment Office with a copy of Appellant's appraisal, which Appellant is willing to do. 41. The other Interested Parties have all filed objections to Appellant's written discovery, on the basis that Appellant did not request leave of court prior to issuing the discovery. -10- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 - . 42. The other Interested Parties did not suggest any reason why Appellant should not be entitled to the limited information that it is requesting. 43. Appellant believes and therefore avers that, when Appellant discloses its appraisal to the Assessment Office, the other Interested Parties will have the benefit of Appellant's appraisal either directly or indirectly. 44. This Motion is being filed promptly after receipt of the objections of West Shore School District on December 5,2005. 45. With the history of this case as averred herein and where there are millions of dollars of assessment value in controversy, Appellant avers that fairness to the taxpayer demands that the Interested Parties inform Appellant of the evidence with which Appellant will be confronted at the hearing. 46. The next discov(:ry court before the Honorable Kevin A. Hess, J. is scheduled for January II, 2006, and the next one after that is scheduled for February 9, 2006. -11- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 - . 47. Counsel for Appellant will be out of the country from January 6, 2006, through at least January 19,2006. 48. Appellant has suggested a continuance of the hearing scheduled for February 6, 2006. 49. Appellant believes and therefore avers that none of the Interested Parties object to the requested continuance so long as the hearing is not rescheduled before the Interested Parties have prepared an appraisal which they would expect to be able to do by the middle of March of2006. 50. Appellant believes and therefore avers that, where the issue of discovery is discretionary with the court, it would be appropriate that the issue be decided by the judge who will be hearing the merits of the case. WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully requests that your Honorable Court issue a Rule upon the Interested Parties to show cause why the Interested Parties should not be -12- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 - I required to respond to Appellant's written discovery and why the hearing scheduled for February 6, 2006, should not be continued to be rescheduled at the request of any party after March 15, 2006. Date: December 8, 2005 Respectfully submitted, ~/~ E~. Wayne . Shade, EsqUIre Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Appellant -13- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 INTERROGA TORIES I. Please state the name, address and telephone number of each person whom you will be calling to testity as other than expert witnesses and with respect to each of them, state the substance of their testimony and when and how they obtained that information. 2. Please state the name, address and telephone number of each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at the hearing. 3. As to each person identified as an expert witness, please state the substance of the facts and opinions to which he or she is expected to testifY and the grounds for each opinIOn. * A report, personally signed by your expert, may be furnished in lieu of your answer to this Interrogatory. If you elect to furnish reports in lieu of an answer, then please indicate in the space above the date of each such report and the persons by whom they were prepared. EXHIBIT "A" WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Please furnish, at our expense, at our office within thirty (30) days from service hereof, a photostatic copy or like reproduction of all documents which you intend to use as exhibits at the hearing. This Request for Production of Documents shall be deemed to be continuing and shall apply to Supplemental Answers to these Interrogatories presently issued and to all Answers and Supplemental Answers to all sets of our Interrogatories issued hereafter. It is hereby certified that this Request for Production of Documents was mailed to counsel for the parties indicated on this date by the undersigned. EXHIBIT "B" --<. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 LFGC, INC., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee : NO. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TO\\NSHIP, and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this I ~ day of ~ ,2005, upon consideration of the within Motion, a Rule is issued upon the Interested Parties to show cause why the Interested Parties should not be required to respond to Appellant's written discovery and why the hearing on the appeal scheduled for February 6,2006, at 8:30 A.M. should not be continued to be rescheduled at the request of any party after March I'J ... ~ ~ ~ltj ,0-0> j 1:(jt)(J.~ \ 15,2006. ~ ;,.~~. Edward E. Guido, J. Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, Attorney for Appellant Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire, Solicitor, Cumberland County Steven P. Miner, Esquire, Solicitor, Lower Allen Township William E. Miller, Jr., Esquire, Solicitor, Upper Allen Township Andrew J. Blady, Esquire, Solicitor, West Shore School District ()-~~ .JJIs - -.', IT' " ' , . ~ . 'rrl0 ....' ',-' ---~.~--,_.--- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West l}omfretStreet Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 LFGC, INC., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee : NO. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TO\\ NSHIP, and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT J7~daYOf~ , 2005, the interested parties having agreed to respond to Appellant's written discovery and having further agreed to a continuance of the hearing on the appeal, it is hereby ordered that the hearing scheduled for February 6, 2006, at 8:30 A.M., is continued, to be rescbeduled at the request of any party after March 15,2006. /"'" ~ou Edward E. Guido, J. Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, Attorney for Appellant Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire, Solicitor, Cumberland County Steven P. Miner, Esquire, Solicitor, Lower Allen Township William E. Miller, Jr., Esquire, Solicitor, Upper Allen Township Andrew J. Blady, Esquire, Solicitor, West Shore School District I) ").-3' - D':s' ~ ~ \1 \\\..'i.,r .1\').' " () '7 ~(.{\ (~~%7. c \ .r, \.\\1 t)v __U' ~ .\.;.iJ ,,,"_ ,,_,.._,..-1 -::.:\4).' -?JO \.'\_lir;-" \ '"..,\,!, 'L -... ".W I;, .L'~\;::"J \{1-~:Y;\\-'\ :1');"'-''''- ..,p 12/15/2005 08:59 FAX 7172349478 MWK&E HGB PA I4J 002 ~ December 15,2005 . , VIA FAX - 240-6462 SINCE 1888 3211 North Front Street P,O, Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 171l()..0300 7]7.238-8]H7 Fax: 717-234-9478 The Honorable Edward E. Guido Cwnberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, P A 17013-3387 Re; LFGC, Inc. v. Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals v. Cumberland County, Upper Alleu Township, Lower Allen Township and West Shore School District, No. 05-5078 Civil Term Other Office!i Colani"l P.lIk Llncastct 717-652.7020 717-431.0138 Mcch..itiic:iburg Millcrsburg 717-691-5577 717-692-5810 ShipIX'--n::;burg Yurk 717-530-75]5 7]7-843-0SO. Dear Judge Guido: Please accept this letter as a response from Lower Allen Township indicating that we will not participate in the hearing set for December 28, 2005 at I :00 p.m. in your Court room with rcgard to the matter referenced above, Despite the case law to the contrary, we will respond to Appellant's written discovery, and we do not oppose a continuance for the hearing scheduled for February 6, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. With that in mind, I will copy the other counsel involved in this case to indicate that we expect cooperation as well in having the appraisal for LFGC, Inc. prepared in a timely fashion and disclosed to the taxing bodies. Thank YOll for your acceptance of this letter. Very truly yours, ME Z E~CKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.e. // Ste cc: Waync F. Shade, Esquire William E. Miller, Esquire Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire Andrew 1. Blady, Esquire Thomas G. Vernau, Interim Township Manager SPMlseh lam~ F. Csrl Edward E. Knauss, ~ Jered L. Hock Sh:::vl.:n r. Miner Oark DeVere FranciE J. Lafferty, IV David H. Mal'til1E"aU An\1rew W, Norfleet ~ BOI1rd Cmiji~d in civil IrillIIlJUlRlldRdvo""ll~':V /71J fhr NnfiClIHrl BMrd (~rrTia1 AdT~a;ry 34n64-1 12/15/2005 08:59 FAX 7172349478 IlWK&E KGB PA 141001 l,^W METZGER WICKERSHAM FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET 3211 No.RTH FR.ONT STRElIT HAlUUSBT,JRG,PA l7Il0.o300 117-l3S.SI87 FA'" 111-234-9418 DAlE: I ::</tfJ/C5 ~ iJpHiH--i. ~ '(lIIAA/b.i 1.4..AA.IL r!Pu/\1~ dt(o -fr; V6V ,dh>>-PM ~ !JuAiPA ) '?-Alj' tF&r!.;..h..e V (j"(AMJ-tJ'~1~C~1 d/ _ jJtiL 'D!J - 5'0 1 g Other office~ Colonial Park Lancaster 71H52-1020 111-431-0138 MedUlnic!lburg MiIlersburg 111-611.5577 111-692-5SIO ShipPC2l!iburg york 717-530-1515 717-843-0502 TO: NAME: COMPANYIFIRM: FAX NO.: FROM: SUBJECT: NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): TIME: q :00 ttf!1 SENDER COMMENTS: CONFlDENTIALITY NOTE; Jl101llS F. Carl Edward E. T(lll\\lSS, N'* J~ed L Hock Steven P. Miner Clar14: DeVere Fl1mcis 1. Lafferty, IV David H Mwtincau Andrew W. Norflccc T11io;: mlYlsaa: is intended or'llv for the tL"iC nfthe: il'ldividusl or cntitv 10 which it is addrll!~".ci1 Me! fiUlV contain infonnatiOn that 1.<; t:ltivilt:!!~ confidentilll 3Ild exemnt from di!i:cloS'un: under lInnlica.bh: law. rt"thc reader ()flhis mC$SBge is not the intended rccipll;:Dt, you are hereby notified thaI any dissc:mination, disrribution or copying ofthi,; communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this i;OmmlD1icatiOJl in error, plc.u."e notify us immedilli:ely by telephone at (717)238-8187, artd return the original mess.ag.e to us at the. above Mldres$ V~l\ tl'l1? U.S. POl>te.l SCJVilOc. Thank you. .R~Ol"'!fltkiin""j1 /rirllkrwalldaduoctJt:y bvtMNoiltlHtJlJj()t,/rrJ .j[TriplMI'OMO)' .. LAW OFFICES OF MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC William E, Miller, Jr, Alicia S, Miller 1822 MARKET STREET. CAMP Hill. PA 17011 TEL: (717) 737-9210. FAX: (717) 737-9215 Of Counsel: Michael L, Bangs 23 December 2005 Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: LFGC, Inc. v. Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeal, et al. CCCCP No. 05-5078 Dear Mr. Shade: At this time, we have no documents or responses to your discovery requests. However, we agree to provide any discovery material to you within ten (10) days of our receipt of it and within thirty (30) days prior to any hearing in this matter. We have no objection to the cancellation of the hearing before Judge Guido scheduled for Wednesday, 28 December 2005, or to a continuance of the February hearing. Please confirm that the 28 December hearing has been cancelled. Very truly yours, MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC By: ~s. ~/llfl/tr Alicia S. Miller ASM/mlj cc: The Honorable Edward Guido Steven P. Miner, Esquire Andrew J. Blady, Esquire Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire ~,'.. LFGC, INC., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee : NO. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP. LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION FOR AGREED ORDER AND NOW, this / 3~y of I~ , 2006, it is hereby agreed and stipulated by and among Appellant LFGC, Inc., by its attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, Cumberland County and Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, by their attorney, Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire, Lower Allen Township, by its attorneys, Steven P. Miner, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., Upper Allen Township, by its attorneys, William E. Miller, Jr., Esquire, of Miller & Associates, P.C., and West Shore School District, by its attorneys, Andrew J. Blady, Esquire, of Eastburn and Gray, P.C., as follows: ,. .'.. 1. Appellant filed a Petition for Appeal on September 28,2005, pursuant to which an Order was entered on October 4,2005, fixing a hearing thereon for February 6, 2006. By Order of December 27,2005, 1he hearing scheduled for February 6,2006, was continued generally. 2. The parties have reached agreement on the assessments of the properties in question as to which it is the desire and intention of the parties hereto that this Stipulation and Joint Motion for Agreed Order be endorsed as an Order of Court so as to have the full effect thereof. 3. The properties which are the subject of this appeal are Cumberland County Assessment Parcel No. 13-11-0270-042 in Lower Allen Township and Parcel No. 42-11- 0272-132 in Upper Allen Township, known, collectively as Liberty Forge. 4. The parties stipulate that the fair market value of the subject properties as of the date offiJing of the Petition to the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals and as of the 2004 county-wide reassessment are, as follows: Lower Allen Township Parcel No. 13-11-0270-042 Land Improvements $767,798 $1,453,851 -2- .. . Upper Allen Township Parcel No. 42-11-0272-132 Land Improvements $] 32,202 $196.149 Total $2,550,000 5. The parties further stipulate that the aforesaid assessed values include all improvements currently in existence on the premises and apply to all real estate taxes governed by the 2004 county-wide assessment and going forward until the erection of further improvements that are not presently in existence or until the next county-wide assessment. 6. The Cumberland County Assessment Office shall promptly notifY the appropriate taxing bodies of the change in assessment and instruct the taxing bodies to make any appropriate refunds with interest from the date of the foregoing Order. 7. The undersigned counsel for the parties hereto each hereby confirm that they have reviewed this Stipulation and Joint Motion for Agreed Order with their respective clients and that they have been specifj cally authorized by their clients to endorse this Stipulation and Joint Motion for Agreed Order. -3- - , ' WHEREFORE, the parties hereto respectfully request that your Honorable Court endorse the foregoing Order of Court. /CI~ E~ Wayne F. Shade, EsqUIre 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Attorney for Appellant ~..-f.?~-- Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire 35 South Thrush Drive Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Attorney for Cumberland County and Cumberland County Assessment Board of Appeal METZGER, WICKERSHAM. KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. It, - /L/ By: /~ Stevell P. Miner, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Attorneys for Lower Allen Township MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC. By: ..------------ ------ --- - William E. Miller, Jr. Miller & Associates, P 1822 Market Stree Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 170 II Attorneys for Upper Allen Township -4- ".... , . ~ " EASTBURN AND GRAY, P.C. By ^~Jody~ Eastburn and Gray, P.C. 60 East Court Street P.O. Box 1389 Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901 Attorneys for West Shore School District -5- -C'(' : I~:!~ < (/".! ~\ ;; r~~ o c, 1"-> c.::;;) C:? c.r'o ;<;- ---1 .( ::c: "'- ;;0 (2- -" -l I-n nlp ''2~ (-~\~ :-,~~m ~-:~ :>>: :?t Cl' """ ~ c.n -' ..' LFGC, INC., Appellant v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Appellee v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT and WEST SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Interested Parties ,17 Fi~ r,EJVED MAR 17 2"l I' : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 05-5078 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL DIVISION : REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this :rJ~ay of ~ , 2006, upon consideration of the within Stipulation and Joint Motion for Agreed Order, it is ordered and decreed that the market values of the subject properties, including all improvements currently in existence, for all real estate taxes governed by the 2004 county-wide assessment and going forward until the erection of further improvements that are not presently in existence or until the next county-wide assessment is, as follows: Lower Allen Township Parcel No. 13-11-0270-042 Upper Allen Township Parcel No. 42-11-0272-132 Land Improvements $767,798 $1,453,851 Land Improvements $132,202 $196,149 ~" The Cumberland County Assessment Office shall promptly notifY the appropriate taxing bodies of the change in assessment. Edward E. Guido, J. byne F. Shade, Esquire, Attorney for Appellant -vEjward L. Schorpp, Esquire, Solicitor, Cumberland County .JSJ:ven P. Miner, Esquire, Solicitor, Lower Allen Township -~liam E. Miller, Jr., Esquire. Solicitor, Upper Allen Township .)Andrew J. Blady, Esquire, Solicitor, West Shore School District A.l~'.;r'~lC'- -":::i_"'.!nJ 8 S :, He! 22 IN!,j 9DDl AdV1.C\';;~',' : l..,).~<d :>-U jO 3:1~.::O' cr:nu