HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-2293CHARLES B. LIEBMAN and
SAMUEL L. LIEBMAN,
Petitioners
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUIvIBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, :
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, : TAX ASSESSMENT
Respondent :
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF
THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND~ BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALE
Petitioners, Charles B. Liebrnan and Samuel L. Liebman, by and through their attorneys,
Reager & Adler, PC, hereby petition the Court pursuant to 72 P.S. §5020-518.1 (a) for review of
the decision of the County of Cumberland Board of Assessment Appeals and in support thereof
avers as follows:
1. Petitioners, Charles B. Liebman and Samuel L. Liebman ("Petitioners"), are adult
individuals, who arc the owners of property located at 4705 Car~lc Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA
17050.
Cumberland County:
10-21-0279-021.
Petitioners are the owners in fee simple of the following parcel of real estate in
Parcel at 4705 Carlisle Pike, in Hampden Township, bearing tax parcel no.
$6,183,030.
5.
Rule 2.01 (b) of the rules and regulations governing real estate assessments for
Board of Assessments for Cumberland County (the "Board"), provides that 'Xvhen a countywide
3. The County of Cumberland conducted a countywide assessment, which
countywide assessment was for the tax year 2001.
4. As a result of the countywide assessment, Petitioner's property was valued at
revision of assessments occurs all appeals shall be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the
initial notice of a new assessment value. All such countywide reassessment notices shall be
conclusively deemed to have been received ten (10) days after mailing, and therefore all such
countywide reassessment appeals shall be fried within forty (40) days of mailing of the said
notice."
6. Petitioners filed an appeal in August, 2001, seeking to have their assessment
revised. In the appeal Petitioners sought a revision for the 2001 and 2002 tax year and a refund
of taxes paid for the year 2001 based on Petitioners' never having received notice of the new
assessment.
7.
Petitioners presented evidence at the hearing before the Board that the assessed
value of Petitioners' property was $4,000,000. The County presented evidence that the value was
$4,300,000 and the School District presented evidence that the value was $4,500,000.
8. Petitioners also alleged at the hearing and in their appeal before the Board of
Assessment Appeals that they never received the notice of the new assessed value of
$6,183,030.00.
9. On or about April I0, 2002, the County of Cumberland, acting by and through
the Board, revised the assessment from $6,183,030 to $4,400,000.00, a 29% reduction in the
assessed value. A copy of the decision is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A".
10. Despite the fact that the Board found that Petitioners' property had been
substantially over-assessed, the Board refused to make the decision effective for tax year 2001.
2
11. No evidence was introduced at the hearing before the Board showing that the
notice of reassessment was specifically mailed to Petitioners, despite the fact that the burden is on
the County to establish proof of mailing.
12. The decision by the Board to make its revised assessment applicable only to the
2002 tax year and not the 2001 tax year was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.
13. Petitioners request a trial de novo by this court for the sole issue of deciding
whether the Board erred in not making its revised assessment effective for tax year 2001.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that the Board's Decision/Order he modified to make
it effective for both the 2002 and 2001 tax years and for relief consistent with their request to
include a refund of excess taxes paid for 2001.
BY:
Theodore A. Adler, Esquire
I.D. No. 16267
2331 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-1383
Attorney for Petitioners,
Charles B. Liebman and Samuel L. Liebrnan
3
VERIFICATION
I, LINUS E. FENICLE, ESQUIRe, being duly sworn according to law, depose and state
that I am the attorney for the Petitioners, Charles B. Liebman and Samuel L. Liebrnan, and I make
this verification on their behalf and that said Petitioners are unavailable and unable to make this
verification on their own behalf within the time allotted for filing of this pleading and the facts set
forth in the foregoing pleading are tree and correct to the best of counsel's knowledge,
information and belief.
This verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024 and is based on interviews,
conferences, reports, records and other investigatory material in the file.
By:
LINUS E. FENICLI~, BSQUIRE
CTY OF CUMBERLAND ~717
240 6354
05/01/02
!5~55J~.:02/0,2 N0:599
Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
Old Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Bo~d of A~.e~men! Appeals
LIo~l W. Bucher
R. Fred Hefelflrtger
Sarah Hughes
(717) 240-6350
(717) 240-$354 (fax)
BONNIE M. MAHONEY
STEVEN D. TfLEY
A~al~t~nt Selleltor
DECISION ORDER
MAILING DATE: April t0, 2002
PARCEL NUMBER: 10-21-0279-021.
LIEBMAN, CHARLES B & SAMUEL J
4705 CARLISLE PIKE
MECHANICSBURG PA 17050
Dear Property Owner:
This letter is to officially notify you of the decision of the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals
regarding the above-referenced parcel,
DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: 04/09/2002
DATE DECISION RENDERED: 04/10/2002
EFFECTIVE FOR TAX YEAR: 2002
DECISION RENDERED:
[ ] Withdrawn By Applicant
[ ] Abandoned For Failure To Appear
[ ] Denied - No Change
[ ] Approved Review Appraiser's Changes
IX] Revised Assessment Based on Hearing
[ ] Other:
TOTAL VALUE
Old Assessed Value:
New Assessed Value:
FAIR MARKET CLEAN AND GREEN
6,183,030 NOT
4,400,000 APPLICABLE
CLEANAND GREEN
STATUS
Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal to the Court of Common
Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's office on or before May 9, 2002.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF.
I hereby certify that I have served a tree and correct copy of the within Petition for
Review of the Decision of the County of Cumberland, Board of Assessment Appeals upon the
following person(s) by certified United States Mail, return receipt requested, and by personal
service:
County of Cumberland
Cumberland County Commissioners
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Hampden Township
Hampden Township Municipal Bldg.
230 Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Cumberland County Board of
Assessment Appeals
Old Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Cumberland Valley School District
6746 Carlisle Pike
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
DATE: ~0~
~emus E. Fenicle, Esquire
CHARLES B. LIEBMAN and
SAMUEL L. LIEBMAN,
Petitioners
Vo
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND,
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
Respondent
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
;
: TAX ASSESSMENT
.ORDER
AND NOW, this/~day of '~)/26~ ,2002, upon consideration of Petitioners'
Petition for Review of the Decision of the County of Cumberland, Board of Assessment Appeals,
it is hereby ORDERED that a hearing is scheduled for the lb Oj day of t'~./.z ~a~ ,2002
at ~ J g O a.rm/l~ in courtroom No. z/ , Cumberland County Courthouse.
BY THE COURT:
CHARLES B. LIEBMAN and
SAMUEL L. LIEBMAN,
Petitioners
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2002-2293 CIVIL TERM
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND :
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS: TAX ASSESSMENT
Respondent :
ANSWER
Respondent, Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, by and through the
Assistant Cumberland County Solicitor, Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, hereby fries this Answer to the
Petitioners' Petition for Review of the Decision of the County of Cumberland, Board of
Assessment Appeals, of which the following is a statement:
1. Admitted.
3. Admitted. By way of further answer, the valuations resulting from the year 2000
Cumberland County reassessment were first effective on January 1,2001.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted. By way of further answer, the countywide reassessment notices were
mailed on July 1,2000 and therefore all appeals of the initial reassessment valuations, in order to be
effective for January 1,2001, were to be filed by August 10, 2000.
6. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Petitioners desired to have their
assessment revised and to have the revision effective for the 2001 as well as 2002 tax years. It is
denied that Petitioners never received notice of the new assessment. The averments of paragraph 11
of this Answer are incorporated herein.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that Petitioners alleged that they never
received notice of the new assessment of $6,183,030. However, it is denied that they in fact did not
receive such notice. The averments of paragraph 11 of this Answer are incorporated herein.
9. Admitted. By way of further Answer, the Board's decision was rendered at its
Hearing on April 9, 2002. The written notice of the decision is dated April 10th.
10. Admitted.
11. Denied. Evidence was presented that all notices were mailed to the addresses shown
in the assessment computer records as the last known address for each parcel, that the address
shown in the Cumberland County computer records for this parcel was indeed the address of the
Petitioners and the same address listed at paragraph one of the Petition, and that all computer
generated notices for each parcel of real estate in the county were so printed and prepared and
mailed. The averment as to the burden of proof sets forth a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required.
12. Denied. The averments of this paragraph set forth a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required.
13. Admitted. it is admitted that Petitioners make the request set forth in paragraph 13 of
their Petition.
WHEREFORE, Respondent prays Your Honorable Court for an Order denying
Petitioners' request for retroactive reduction in assessment.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
Assistant Cumb. Cty. Solicitor
Attorney for Respondent
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 2430-5838
Supreme Court I.D.#32318
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer are true and correct, partially
upon personal knowledge and partially upon my belief; to the extent language in the Answer is
that of my attorneys, I have relied upon my attorneys in making this Verification. I understand
that false statemems herein are made and subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to
unswom falsification to authorities.
Dated:
Chief Assessor
CHARLES B. LIEBMAN and
SAMUEL L. LIEBMAN,
Petitioners
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2002-2293 CIVIL TERM
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND :
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS: TAX ASSESSMENT
Respondent :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer by placing a
certified true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to:
Linus E. Fenicle, Esquire
REAGER & ADLER, P.C.
Attorney for Petitioner
2331 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4642
Assistant Cumb. Co. Solicitor
Attorney for Respondent
5 S. Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5838
Attorney I.D.#32318
CHARLES B. LIEBMAN and
SAMUEL L. LIEBMAN,
Petitioners
.. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2002-2293 CIVIL TERM
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND :
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS: TAX ASSESSMENT
Respondent :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a tree and correct copy of the Respondent's Post-Heating
Brief by placing a certified tree and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, postage pre-
paid, addressed to:
Theodore A. Adler, Esquire
REAGER & ADLER, P.C.
Attorney for Petitioner
2331 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 170114642
Date: August 30, 2002
Stg'phen, flS. Tiley, E~quire
Assistant Cumb. Co. Solicitor
Attorney for Respondent
5 S. Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5838
Attorney I.D.#32318
CHARLES B. LIEBMAN and
SAMUEL L. LIEBMAN,
Petitioners
VS.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
02-2293 CIVIL
TAX ASSESSMENT
IN RE: PETITIONERS' PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE
DECISION OF THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND_~ BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2. ,d day of October, 2002, after hearing, the court finding that
the testimony of the petitioners that they did not receive their reassessment notice in the year
2000 is, at best, inconclusive, and the court further finding that the testimony of the respondent
to the effect that said notice was mailed is compelling, and that the greater probability is that the
notice of reassessment mailed to the petitioners in 2000 was, in fact, received, the petition for
review of the decision of the County of Cumberland, Board of Assessment Appeals, is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
Theodore A. Adler, Esquire
For the Petitioners
i~ A. Hess, J.
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
For the Respondent
:rim
ALI',JI'iO9