Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-6717MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON Appellants V. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 6G- 6 -7'7 G1 v r ? -{ e t.?. CIVIL ACTION - LAW REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL PETITION AND NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: AND NOW come the Appellants, Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson, by and through their attorney, The Law Office of Darrell C. Dethlefs, and respectfully give notice of appeal and represent as folrows: 1. The Appellants herein are Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson; adult individuals with an address of 116 Ellesmere Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. The Appellee is The Board of Assessment of Appeals of Cumberland County, having their office at One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013. 3. Appellee is the duly constituted entity created by law to hear and decide real estate tax assessment appeals and was so acting at all times relevant hereto. 4. Appellants are the fee simple owners of certain real estate known and identified as Tax Parcel No. 42-11-0274-044 as shown on the Cumberland County Real Estate Tax Assessment records located in the township of Upper Allen in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Real Estate"). 5. Appellant Owners filed an appeal from such assessment with the Appellants contesting the amount of said assessment. The Appellees held a hearing on said appeal in its appellate capacity on October 19, 2006. 6. Appellee rendered its written decision on October 25, 2006, said decision set the market value of the subject real estate at $2,750,270.00. A copy of said decision is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". 7. This Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter pursuant to 72 P.S. Section 5020-518.1 et seq. 8. The decision aforesaid is erroneous for the following reasons. a. The decision does not reflect the true market value of the Subject Real Estate, said decision being insufficient and above the true market value. b. The decision is not based upon competent facts. c. The decision is contrary to law. d. The decision constitutes an abuse of discretion. 9. Appellants, Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson, therefore, aver that the market value of the Subject Real Estate is substantially less than fair market value of $2,750,270.00 as set by the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals. WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully request this Honorable Court to accept this appeal de novo and fix a hearing thereon in accordance with law, and to find the fair market value of the subject property lower than what it is currently set. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRELL C. DETHLEFS Michael J. Pyko?h,/FAquIre- Attorney ID 5885 1/ 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-0476 (717) 975-9446 Attorney for Appellant MARTIN JACKSON and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARIANNE JACKSON CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Appellants V. : NO. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Appellee REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL VERIFICATION We, Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson, do hereby verify and certify that the facts contained in the Petition and Notice of Appeal are true and correct to the best ofour knowledge, information and belief; and that we understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 Date: ?? fo Date: ?/ ?? 'Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Old Courthouse One Courthouse Square (717) 240-6350 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6354 (fax) Board of Assessment Appeals BONNIE M. MAHONEY Lloyd W. Bucher Chief Assessor R. Fred Hefelfinger Sarah Hughes STEPHEN D. TILEY Assistant Solicitor DECISION ORDER MAILING DATE: October 25, 2006 PARCEL NUMBER: 42-11-0274-044. JACKSON, MARTIN MICHAEL J PYKOSH, ESQUIRE 2132 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL PA 17011 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: 10/19/2006 DATE DECISION RENDERED: 10/25/2006 EFFECTIVE FOR TAX YEAR: 2006 DECISION RENDERED: [ ] Withdrawn By Applicant [ ] Abandoned For Failure To Appear [ ] Denied - No Change [ ] Approved Review Appraiser's Changes [X] Revised Assessment Based on Hearing [ ] Other: TOTAL VALUE FAIR MARKET CLEAN AND GREEN CLEAN AND GREEN STATUS Old Assessed Value: 3,156,810 NOT New Assessed Value: 2,750,270 APPLICABLE Any person aggrieved by the order of the Board of Assessment may appeal to the Court of Common Pleas by filing a petition in the Prothonotary's office on or before November 27,2006. Ck\At?t V "A " $ 00.39 E...:I1 a9'_. V ... MAILED FROM ZIPGODE. CUMI EA'COUNTY ASSESS Wr OFFICE Oki Courthouse Om ,rthowm Square Ci dbft; PA 17013 -ADORM5 SEREQUESTED 42-11-0274-044. JACKSON, MARTIN MICHAEL J PYKOSH, ESQUIRE 2132 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL PA 17011 111,i1i11,ifft11111ff111if:f11if11, Ifft111 ff1111if1I1f1ff1fill M MARTIN JACKSON and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARIANNE JACKSON CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Appellants V. . NO. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Appellee REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the attached Assessment Appeal was served upon the following by regular first-class mail, postage prepaid, on this ads` day of None m be v , 2006, addressed as follows: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Cumberland County Finance and Assessment Office c/o Bonnie Mahoney One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Donna Weldon Solicitor for Mechanicsburg School District Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP 210 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 William Miller Solicitor for Upper Allen Township Miller & Associates 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Edward L. Schorpp Solicitor for Cumberland County 35 S Thrush Dr Carlisle, PA 17013-7652 Date: % [ I 210 (?, Mi el J. Py os , Esquire Attorney ID 58851 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-0476 (717) 975-9446 Attorney for Appellant C ?_? - - ?' -- - `? s? ? Y /`?? ? 1 ' _ \ c i. 1 ^ v t q ' v O _._ ? ? _ C?.3 C._+ `.7 -G (e`? ? ` V1 1 NOV 28 Me -IM 'y MARTIN JACKSON and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARIANNE JACKSON CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Appellants V. NO. ?(j 7? G1 vd) 4 ern,. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Appellee REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this CZq day of 4N bG??nQtQr', 2006, upon consideration of the within Petition and Notice of Appeal and on motion of Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire, Attorney for Appellants, Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson, the Court accepts said appeal and hereby established a de novo hearing on the subject matter hereof to be held in Court Room No. of the Cumberland County Courthouse on the,=A" day of , 200_1, at *'5 D o'clock A m. All parties are to exchange expert reports at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing in this matter. A certified copy of this Order with a copy of the Petition and Notice of Appeal attached shall be served upon the named appellees and other taxing bodies by Appellants by certified mail return receipt requested. By the Court, ?_A"A J. 40 VlN'*r'rVl,. NN3d 56 :Oi HV O£ AON 9OOZ AdViQNU i(;Idd 3H110 30li4C,-CMU MARTIN JACKSON and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARIANNE JACKSON CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Appellants NO. 6717-2006 V. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND CIVIL ACTION - LAW COUNTY Appellee REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL ANSWER AND NOW, comes the Appellee, Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals, by its attorney, Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, Assistant Cumberland County Solicitor for Tax Matters, and files this Answer of which the following is a statement: 1-6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. More specifically, the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 704 of The Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law. 72 P. S. §5453.704 8. Denied. The averments of this paragraph and each of its sub-lettered paragraphs set forth conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 9. Denied. By way of further Answer, the market value set by the Board of Assessment Appeals in this decision is irrelevant to this proceeding as the appeal to Court is de novo. Public records of the land sale and building permits show that the Jacksons have a total invested in this home for land and improvements of $3,925,373. The property was assessed by the Cumberland County Assessment Office at a value of $3,156,810. It is that assessment that the Jacksons appealed to the Board, and that assessment which is now before the Court and presumptively valid. By way of further Martin & Marianne Jackson - Answer Page I of 2 J Answer, the averments of this paragraph set forth conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals prays Your Honorable Court for an Order denying taxpayer's appeal or finding the fair market value of the property to be the amount of the assessment appealed, to wit: $3,156,810, or such other amount as the Court may deem just and proper. Date: y,,®6 Respectfully submitted, r By - - - r? , 2 Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Assistant Cumb. Cty. Solicitor For Tax Matters 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Supreme Court I.D.02318 VERIFICATION 1 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 statements herein are made and subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Loaf, ?I ?I I Martin & Marianne Jackson - Answer Yl't Bonnie M. Mahoney, Chief Assessor Page 2 of 2 4 MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE .JACKSON Appellants THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF, CUMBERLAND COUNTY 11 Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 6717-2006 CIVIL ACTION - LAW REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby' certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer by placing copy of the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to: Michael' Pykosh, Esquire Donna S. Weldon, Esquire Law Office of Darrell C. Dethlefs Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP Attorney for Appellants Attorney for Mechanicsburg School Dist. 2132 Market Street 210 Walnut Street Camp. Hill, PA 17011 Harrisburg, PA 17101 William E. Miller, Jr. Miller & Associates, P.C. Attorney for Upper Allen Township 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 /avs..?f? ?o6 Dated: Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Attorney for Cumb. Cty. Tax Claim Bureau 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Supreme Court I.D.#32318 N - C n CZ) C) ZR r i L_ w 5 m Ac C.I1 4 MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON, Appellants V. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 6717-2006 CIVIL ACTION -LAW REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire, hereby certify that I had the below listed individuals, served with the Order relative to the time and date of the Appeal Hearing in the above captioned matter on December 6, 2006 via First Class U.S. mail Certified Return Receipt, said green card is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey & Tiley S South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Cumberland County Finance and Assessment Office c% Bonnie Mahoney Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 William Miller Solicitor for Upper Allen Township Miller & Associates 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Donna Weldon Solicitor for Mechanicsburg School District Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP 210 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Dater i5 0 -7 By: Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire Law Office of Darrell C. Dethlefs 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-9446 Darrell C. Dethlefs* Michael J. Pykosh* Bryan W. Shook *Licensed PA Title Agents 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Fax: (717) 975-2309 Phone: (717) 975-9446 E-mail: DDethlef-,@aol.com Legal Assistants Sherry L. Deckman* Laryssa E. Van Lieu December 6, 2006 Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson v. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County Cumberland County Tax Parcel No.: 42-11-0274-044 Dear Mr. Tiley: Enclosed and served upon you please find Judge Ebert's Order relative to setting the time and date for the above referenced Assessment Appeal Hearing. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. urs, 71CaeZPykosh MJP/lev Enclosure LAW OFFICE OF DARRELL C. DETHLEFS ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also Complete Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits.. 1. Article Addressed to: 51???tcn ?.Tiletu, ?suire Frey (t- Tile y 5 sue. ???U? s Ccul isIe, -PA,_ 170(3 ? Addressee B. Received by (Printed fYen?e) C. ow o ? 7 h?ery Tic Is A. tAsS I 1 ;7 D. Is delivery address different from Item I - Y If YES, star delivery address below: ? No 3. lype Mall O Enxess Mau 3 Registered O Return Receipt for Merchandise 13 Insteed Mall 0 C.O.D. 4. Reetrk ted Delivery! (Extra Fee) p Yes 2. Article Number 7006 0100 0003 4884 4481 (l wwer from service la(" Ps Form 3811, February 2004 DortMwo FMun Reoelpt 102595-02-W1540 • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 368, Camp Hill, PA 17001-0368 • The Law Office of Darrell C. Dethlefs - "Your Full Service Law Firm " http://www.dcdlaw.net U S Pc,;tal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) Darrell C. Dethlefs* Michael J. Pykosh* Bryan W. Shook *Licensed PA Title Agents December 6, 2006 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Fax: (717) 975-2309 Phone: (717) 975-9446 E-mail: DDethlefsgaol.com Cumberland County Finance and Assessment Office c/o Bonnie Mahoney Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson v. LAW OFFICE OF DARRELL C. DETHLEFS The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County Cumberland County Tax Parcel No.: 42-11-0274-044 Dear Ms. Mahoney: Legal Assistants Sherry L. Deckman* Laryssa E. Van Lieu Enclosed and served upon you please find Judge Ebert's Order relative to setting the time and date for the above referenced Assessment Appeal Hearing. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. yours, g . Pykosh • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete ia A. item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. X ? Agent ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse ? Addressee so that we can return the card to you. MJP/lev y ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, e. Received by C. Dace of Del ry _? D or on the front if space permits. Enclosure 1. Article Addressed to: t . Is ddhwy address drtferant crom learn t If YES, enter delivery address Wow: 13 Yes ? No (,w6lmd Cowry Finance o. Paessw . pp M' ?iV rrlt??00- cat lid r JJJJJ Coc?rEhrsuse y Ore Caw-+-h6uSe sbl ? 3, V"ft ,,,pB Meg ? apose Mail ?p/t 1O? Cbuli$lP t f / 1 r C3 Reg-de 1 13 ReturnReceiptfaMerchandise , ? imwred I ? 4. Restricted Delhw l Pft Fee) ? Yes 2- ArtkleNuftw 7006 0100 (riansferfrom servke fay--- 0003 4884 4504 Ps Form 3811, February 2004 Domudc Ret urn Rrrodpt 102585-0244-1540 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 368, Camp Hill, PA 17001-0368 The Law Office of Darrell C. Dethlefs - "Your Full Service Law Firm " ham://www.dcdlaw.net Postal ?. CERTIFIED MAIL,,, RECEIPT ? (Domestic Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) CO CO $0.39 Postage m Certified Fee $2.40 t O C3 Retum Receipt Fee 00 ere (End orsement Rquired) a (EndorrsementRequirred) 50.00 ? 1 / 4 - C3 Total Postage & Fees $4 • t; d _.... °o (pm......... 41al l'o ................ t2.?•-•-q-- ..................... oro?? O1 x rar4?mse 'c'ity sieie:'zrw.a Cac 11 SAP ,T/? ?7 013 -- 3323 Darrell C. Dethlefs* Michael J. Pykosh* Bryan W. Shook *Licensed PA Title Agents December 6, 2006 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Fax: (717) 975-2309 Phone: (717) 975-9446 E-mail: DDethlefsAwl.com William Miller Solicitor for Upper Allen Township Miller & Associates 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson v. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County Cumberland County Tax Parcel No.: 42-11-0274-044 Dear Mr. Miller: Legal Assistants Sherry L. Deckman* Laryssa E. Van Lieu Enclosed and served upon you please find Judge Ebert's Order relative to setting the time and date for the above referenced Assessment Appeal Hearing. Sh ould you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, .. ¦ Corliplete Iterns 1, 2, and s. Also complete Nam Del ef nt er an ? B c A. G(Agerit r A- ael. Pykosh yo o e Addres ee X V ? r verse ress n the ur n me a nd aadd ¦ Print a s ", so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mallplece, MJP/lev B. Received by (PHOW Marne) C. Date of gellvery / ,; - 7,X A4 or on the front If space permits. A D. Is dwKwy address difiem t from Item 1? ? Yes 1. Artlds Addressed to: Enclosure kfi. /44,W N111 W If YES, eater delivery address below: 2(No ? so((?rtw fi uPia& 0Pn `1° m1l4', Asewc a)W 1$ZZ a? ?? f- Sirte ( ?. Service Iwo 1 ? b r? o Owdita Mall D E3rpress Mail C I? 1 p Rs*wed 0 Retum Receipt for Mer&awise 13 insured Mall 13 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Feel ? Yes 2. Article Number 7006 0100 0003 4884 4467 (+?arrslbrtrom fiorrrservicemeelt PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domentle Retu m Receipt 102595.02-WIS40 : _.a LAW OFFICE OF DARRELL C. DETHLEFS Mailing Address: P.O. Box 368, Camp Hill, PA 17001-0368 The Law Office of Darrell C. Dethlefs - "Your Full Service Law Firm " http://www.dediaw.net M l.tFi 1 IrIGU IV (Domestic Mart Only: Co Co Postage $ M Certified Fee O C3 Return Receipt Fee C3 (Endorsement Required) p Restricted Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Required) C Total Postage & Fees ` °GJ? I am f'Yk I spree: Aj - ------- ------------ orPOBaKNo.'19,209. Me P t $1 .$. mar oa Hp& 9 9? b S4.d4 ?._ , ..K?_s---tyc. III I IA 110(1- 41 Darrell C. Dethlefs* Michael J. Pykosh* Bryan W. Shook *Licensed PA Title Agents December 6, 2006 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Fax: (717) 975-2309 Phone: (717) 975-9446 E-mail: DDethlefs@ao1.com Donna Weldon Solicitor for Mechanicsburg School District Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP 210 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson v. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County Cumberland County Tax Parcel No.: 42-11-0274-044 Dear Ms. Weldon: Legal Assistants Sherry L. Deckman* Laryssa E. Van Lieu Enclosed and served upon you please find Judge Ebert's Order relative to setting the time and date for the above referenced Assessment Appeal Hearing. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, MJP/lev ¦ Corrrphle Items 1, 2, and 3. AW an iplete item 4 if Restricted DdVery Is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpieoe, or on the front If space permits. Agent B. niarne) C. D. Is delvery address different from Item i? 13 Yes It YES, enter delivery address below: E3 No Enclosure 1. ArWe Addressed to: gonna (geld m 5o11-Gifor [-61 IY chmicS?Ur`?jj S. D. Kre?er Wood Allen 1, Rah2 U-P Z10 Walnttf- S-Wee ?- 14ov-riSbw5 ,'PAZ_ 1716 I &\% 94111 & Typo Mail 13 Express Mail rrhamsd O Return Receipt for Metchandlae 13 Insured mail 13 C.O.D. 4. ReWk tsd Deilvery? (Extra Fee) O Yes 2. Ankle Number Ohvww from service OW 7006 0100 0003 4884 4528 - PS Form 3811, February 2004 Dornssllc Return RsoNpt 102595'02-M-1540 LAW OFFICE OF DARRELL C. DETHLEFS Mailing Address: P.O. Box 368, Camp Hill, PA 17001-0368 The Law Office of Darrell C. Dethlefs - "Your Full Service Law Firm" http://www.dedlaw.net U.S Postal Co CERTIFIE D . MAIL, ru L,t (Domestic Coverage • . ,•, ro H S s Postage sG.39 $ fir?1I C ttti d ` O er ed Fee C3 O Retum Receipt Fee (EndorsemM Required) i • re 9-0 O Restricted Delivery fee p (Endorsement Required) r9 r3 Total Postage S Fees - /2006 ? H 0 Sent To do o nna (,? }e 1d ;............................. F' ------ - - 210 h/ t ? YY I orPOBoxft. a 1?1?. ff ?7' 17101-170 Vi a .? -( ?' F-n m q (J Ln .13 w MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON, Appellants V. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-6717 CIVIL TERM IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of March, 2007, after conclusion of the hearing in the above-captioned case, the parties are directed to submit memorandums of law in support of their positions on or before the close of business on Friday, March 23, 2007. By the Court, Xi chael J. Pykosh, Esquire For the Appellants ephen D. Tiley, Esq it For the Appellee :lfh A 14,? 7t M. L. Ebert, Jr., J i (? ? ? ? c_g!"i,..J ?} t +??? ???? _; ;, •x,E «?? ,3 MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON Appellants v. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-6717 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 27`h day of August 2007, the market value assessment for 2006 of the subject property is $2,396,180. By the Court, v4ichael J. Pykosh, Esquire Attorney for Appellants v,4ttephen D. Tiley, Esquire a Attorney for Appellee ,VA-1'!`4l £ I :II WV LZ OnV LOOZ alt tG1`v ~i,' ( --'Hi JO MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON Appellants V. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY : PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 06-6717 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION -LAW REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL IN RE:. REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL OPINION and ORDER OF COURT EBERT, J., August 27, 2007 - Petitioners, Martin and Marianne Jackson, filed this appeal from the assessment by Respondent, Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County, of their property at 116 Ellesmere Lane, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.1 The parties seek to establish the fair market value of the property as of the date of the appeal on June 6, 2006.2 The parties have stipulated that the initial assessment of the property was $3,156,810. Additionally, both parties have stipulated that the given common level ratio as of June 2005 was 85.2%, that the common level ratio as of June 2006 was 87.8%, and that the common level ratio factor for Cumberland County at the time of this appeal was 1.00. Accordingly, both parties agree that the fair market value of the property 1 Notes of Testimony, Hearing held March 2, 2007, p. 54 (hereinafter "N.T. 2 N.T. 4-5; The parties seem to disagree as to the date of appeal. In its Trial Memorandum, Appellee asserted that the effective date of appeal was May 1, 2006, which depicts the effective date of the "40 day notice" which Appellants appealed. Appellants assert in their Pre-Trial Memorandum that the assessment appeal took place June 6, 2006. We are of the opinion that the approximate one month discrepancy makes no difference in the valuation of the home; however we will find the date of appeal to be June 6, 2006, since Appellee's expert assessed the home as of that date. See Appellee Ex. 5. 2 will be the tax assessment.3 Having considered all relevant testimony and evidence we find that the market value assessment for the subject property for the 2006 year is $2,396,180. STATEMENT OF FACTS The subject property is located on a 3.54 acre lot in Whitney Ridge Estates - a suburban residential neighborhood in Cumberland County. The two-story, seven bedroom house was built in 2005. It boasts 8263-8719 square feet4 of exquisite, unique craftsmanship on the main two levels and 4402-4963 square feet5 in the elaborately finished basement. Several outstanding features in the home include: stone patio, balcony, iron fence, in-ground pool, basketball court, four fireplaces, walkout fully finished basement, macadam driveway, four car garage, and a beautiful view of the surrounding mountains. The home is located near all necessary support facilities such as schools, shopping centers, recreation, and employment opportunities.' Beyond the seven bedrooms, the home includes a large interior exercise room, wine cellar, and a covered octagon porch/gazebo outdoor living area.7 The actual cost to design and build the home was between 3.7-3.9 million.8 William Gregory Rothman, a PA certified General Real Estate Appraiser,9 testified for the Petitioner as an expert witness. Mr. Rothman considered both a cost approach and a sales comparison approach in order to arrive at an actual value for the Jackson home.10 While Rothman did conduct a cost approach, he did not believe that it was a reliable standard. In his opinion, because the property was "overbuilt", the cost of the property does not necessarily s N.T. 4-5 4 Appellant Ex. 2; Appellee Ex. 6 5 N.T. 31-34; Appellee Ex. 6 6 Appellant Ex. 2; Appellee Ex. 5 & 6 Appellant Ex. 2; Appellee Ex. 8 BAppellant Ex. 2; Appellee Ex. 5 9 The parties stipulated Mr. Rothman as an expert. N.T. 7 10 Mr. Rothman testified, and Ms. Stouffer agreed, that the income approach was not a reliable method for arrive at actual cost in this instance, because in the income approach rent is capitalized and residential real estate in a single family home is not generally rent oriented in this particular market. N.T. 13 & 75 3 reflect an accurate value of the property. Rothman chose to base the value of the home on the comparative sales approach and chose four comparables he felt were similar to the subject property in look, locale, size, quality, and market appeal.l l Rothman used a square footage adjustment based on a $200 per square foot standard. 12 Rothman did not assess the square footage of the basement in the same manner as the rest of the home, although 73% of the basement (4402 square feet) was finished in the same manner as the two main living floors. 13 He chose instead to include a $100,000 blanket adjustment for the finished basement footage. 14 In reaching his assessment, Rothman emphasized that there has never been a sale of property less than ten acres in Cumberland County which has sold for more than $2,000,000.15 He also noted that in order to buy a $2,000,000 home in Central Pennsylvania a buyer would need a household income of $550,000-$560,000.16 Only 2.5% of Central Pennsylvania residents make an income over $200,000. Between 1989 and 2002, only eleven homes sold for more than $1 million (an average of 1.5 per year). 17 Rothman further stated that most persons financially capable of buying such high priced houses, will opt to build a home rather than buy and normally resale of such properties will bring much less than it cost to actually build them. 18 Accordingly, the high end market is currently in a weakened state. 19 Homes recently put on the market for 11 N.T. 14-15 12 N.T. 32 " N.T. 33 to N.T. 37 15 N.T. 15 16 N.T. 26; This statement is based on an 80% loan value. 17 N.T. 27 to N.T. 28 19 N.T. 24 4 more than $2,000,000 have either sold for much less than the posted price or have been removed due to lack of interest.20 Additionally, Rothman maintains that the Jackson property is overbuilt21 and includes many features that a typical resident would not care to include in the purchase value (for example the full-sized basketball court which may have cost $40,000 to build but would be of little interest to an older buyer). After considering all these factors, and having considered multiple market comparables, Mr. Rothman opined that although the property may have cost nearly $4,000,000 to build, the actual market value was only $2,000,000.22 Lesa Stouffer, a Certified Pennsylvania Evaluator, testified for Respondent. Like Mr. Rothman, Ms. Stouffer also chose to conduct both a cost approach and a comparable sales approach. She achieved roughly the same figures as Mr. Rothman in the cost approach but also thought the comparable sales approach to be the best for the present circumstances. 23 She used three comparables - two of which were used by Mr. Rothman in his report. 24 Ms. Stouffer took a different approach, however, in her determination of the value of the property. She opined that the walkout basement would add a value to the property of $100,000,25 that the deck, porch, and external living area would each increase the value by $100,000,26 and that the basketball court added a $40,000 value to the property. 27 She added a subjective value of $75,000 for the fine view of the mountains and $100,000 for the superior quality of construction.28 Ms. Stouffer used a $250 square foot standard for the main two living floors. Unlike Mr. Rothman, she chose to 20 N.T. 49, 51 z' N.T. 32 22 Appellant Ex. 2 2s N.T. 75-76 24 N.T. 76 2s N.T. 87 26 N.T. 89 27 N.T. 90 28 N.T. 94 & 106 include the finished basement footage in her square footage assessment but used only a $75 per square foot standard in assessing the finished basement footage.29 Using the sales comparison approach, Stouffer was of the opinion that the actual market value of the property was $2,750,0000 Both experts agreed that the property is both overdeveloped for the location and that there is no home in Cumberland County which is truly comparable to the subject property. Stouffer was of the opinion that certain aspects, such as the walkout basement, finished basement, superior construction quality, and view added a significant amount of value to the property. Rothman disagreed with this assessment and stated that Stouffer artificially inflated the land value by adding additional value for the property view (which Rothman alleges is included in the value of the lot property) and construction quality. 31 The experts also disagree as to the amount of finished square footage in the basement. Mr. Rothman claims that 73% of the basement is finished, which provides a total square footage of 4,40232 while Ms. Stouffer claims that the amount of finished square footage is 4,963.33 DISCUSSION In tax assessment cases, 72 P.S. 5453.602(a) demands that a reviewing court determine the "actual value" of a Petitioner's property. Specifically, "actual market value is that price which a purchaser, willing but not obligated to buy, would pay an owner willing but not obligated to sell, taking into consideration not only the present use of the property, but all of the uses including the highest and most profitable use to which the land is adaptable and available." 29 N.T. 85, 89; 30 N.T. 92. Stouffer's original assessment was $3,156,810.00. Prior to the hearing on March 2, 2007, there was a tax assessment appeal board hearing held October 19, 2006 at which point the assessment was lowered. N.T. 92-93 3l N.T. 113. Rothman believed that the construction quality of the comparables was at the same level, thus no adjustment was appropriate. 32 N.T. 33 33 N.T. 88 6 County of Monroe v. Bolus, 613 A.2d 178, 182 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (citation omitted). The Court may utilize either the current market value or adopt a base year market value in order to assess actual property value. 72 P.S. 5453.602(a). Both parties offered expert witnesses in the field of real estate value assessment. While coming from different backgrounds and experience, the Court found both experts to be equally well qualified. As is no surprise, the Court also found that each expert's testimony was colored somewhat by a bias for the party for whom they were testifying. As the testimony in this case readily demonstrates, the field of real estate appraisal does not lend itself to scientific analysis and is perhaps best described as an "art" which relies in large part on very subjective factors. It is the responsibility of the trial judge to "weigh the conflicting testimony and values expressed by the competing experts and arrive at a valuation based on the credibility of their opinions." Bolus, 613 A.2d at 181. As with any other evidence, the trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the expert testimony presented during the hearing. Kraner v. Kraner, 841 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2004). We will begin our determination of the actual value of the Jackson property by removing additional value determinations from Ms. Stouffer's assessment which, in our opinion, do not truly reflect marketable value. The additional $100,000 adjustment for the value of a walkout basement and the $75,000 adjustment for the value of the view appear to us to be overstated. The mere fact that this is a walkout basement is not likely to persuade a buyer to pay an additional $100,000 for such a high priced home. What is significant about the basement is not that it is a "walkout" but rather it is the overall quality of this basement which makes it equal to the living space on the upper floors. In the same vain, this Court accepts Mr. Rothman's opinion that the beautiful view is already included in the value of the lot itself. We additionally will not include the $40,000 adjustment for the basketball court, which in this Court's opinion is more of 7 a detractor than an added feature. We also will not include the $100,000 adjustment for the overall quality of the construction, since the other comparables appear to us to also display superior craftsmanship. It is not the craftsmanship that distinguishes this home from the comparables but rather its superior design and grandeur. After subtracting these values from Ms. Stouffer's evaluation of $2,750,000, her adjusted assessment becomes $2,435,000. Considering the assessment of Mr. Rothman, we do not agree with his assessment of the .finished basement. Mr. Rothman did not include the finished basement footage in his overall assessment of the usable square footage of the home. Instead he simply made a blanket $100,000 adjustment to his comparables for the finished basement space in his report. Roughly 73% of the basement is fully finished in a style and quality equal to that of the first and second floor living quarters. It is our belief that, considering the beauty, utility and superior quality of the finished basement area, the square footage should be adjusted using a cost per square foot measurement. Ms. Stouffer agrees that the footage in the basement is commonly assessed at a lower value and used $75 per square foot. We find this figure very low. Even Mr. Rothman in his cost analysis indicated that the basement square footage cost approximately $117 a square foot and the garage cost $112 per square foot. In determining the value of this superb basement, this Court finds that a realistic figure for this home would be $90 per square foot. We will accept Mr. Rothman's opinion that 4,402 square feet of this basement is finished. Applying the $90 per foot assessment to this square footage brings Rothman's adjusted assessment to $2,396,180. We are aware that the credible evidence suggests that there is limited demand in the current market for a home such as the Jackson's. It appears that no home has ever sold in our county which would reflect the cost-value of this house and property. Significantly, testimony has shown that homes recently put on the market for more than $2,000,000 have either sold for 8 much less than the requested price or have been removed from the market due to lack of interest. We do not believe, however, that this should be a determining factor upon which the assessment of this home's actual value must rest. To follow such a blind guide would mean that no matter how large or magnificent a home one built, the value could never be more than $2,000,000 in this county. While a house has not yet sold for such a price, there is no credible evidence to show that this home would not sell for more, considering its truly superior quality and grandeur. In examining the evidence presented in this case, none of the so-called "comparables" in any way approached the true splendor of this home. Having considered both assessments in light of the current market status, we find a reasonable assessment of the Jackson home to be $2,396,180. This figure accounts for the discrepancies in the subjective assessments between the two experts and is, in our opinion, a reasonable and prudent assessment of what a buyer would be willing to pay for the home given its quality and location. Accordingly, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 27th day of August, 2007, the market value assessment for 2006 of the subject property is $2,396,180. Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire Attorney for Appellants Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Attorney for Appellee 9 By the Court, MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON, Appellants V. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 06-6717 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL Appellee NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson, plaintiffs in the above captioned matter, hereby appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania from the Opinion and Order entered in this matter on the 27th day of August 2007. This order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry. A hearing in this matter was held on March 2, 2007. It is believed that a transcript of these proceedings is in the possession of the Court Stenographer. Date: 21',a0L07 Respectfully submitted, By: Michael J yko , E ID# 58851 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-9446 1?270A9202007 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office PYS510 Civil Case Print 2006-06717 JACKSON MARTIN ET AL (vs) CUMBERLAND COUNTY BD OF ASSESS Reference No..: Case Type.....: APPEAL - ASSESSMENT Judgment...... .00 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Disposed Desc.: ------------ Case Comments ------------- Page 1 Filed......... 11/22/2006 Time.......... 10:33 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Jury Trial.... Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info JACKSON MARTIN APPELLANT PYKOSH MICHAEL J 116 ELLESMERE DRIVE MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 JACKSON MARIANNE APPELLANT PYKOSH MICHAEL J 116 ELLESMERE DRIVE MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF APPELLEE ASSESSMENT APPEALS ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE PA 17013 ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries ******************************************************************************** FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/22/2006 PETITION AND NOTICE OF APPEAL ------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/30/2006 ORDER OF COURT - 11-29-06 - IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL - HEARING 03-02-07 AT 9:30 AM IN CR 5 CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - ALL PARTIES ARE TO EXCHANGE EXPERT REPORTS AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING - BY ML EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 11-30-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/30/2006 ANSWER - BY STEPHEN D TILEY ASSIS CLIMB CTY SOL FOR TAX MATTERS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/16/2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - APPEAL HEARING - BY MICHAEL J PYKOSH ATTY ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/05/2007 ORDER OF COURT 05-02-07 - IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL - PARTIES DIRECTED TO SUBMIT MEMORANDUMS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITIONS ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON FRIDAY MARCH 23 2007 - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIS MAILED 03-05-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/26/2007 PROCEEDINGS - 03-02-07 - IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL - BY M L EBERT JR J ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/27/2007 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 08-27-07 - IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 08-27-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/27/2007 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED 08-27-07 - IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX APPEAL - BY M L EBERT JR J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ******************************************************************************** * Escrow Information * Fees & Debits Beq*Bal***P*ymts/Adl End Bal ******************************** **** ****** ******************************* APPEAL MISC 35.00 35.00 .00 TAX ON APPEAL .50 .50 .00 SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00 .00 AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 5.00 .00 JCP FEE 10.00 ------- 10.00 .00 ------- 55.50 ---------- --- 55.50 --------- .00 ***************************************************** *************************** * End of Case Information *********************************************** * ***** ? i MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON, Appellants V. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 06-6717 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL Appellee CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL, was hereby served by depositing the same within the custody of the United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: To: The-Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County clo Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 The Honorable Judge M.L. Ebert, Jr. 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Laura Hanley, Court Stenographer 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Taryn N. Dixon, Esquire District Court Administrator 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: /0 7 Respectfully Submi , By: 111bfiefe(J. Pykosh, Esquire I. D.# 58851 - 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant C) rl ow ?.. Fa -cs N MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON Appellants v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-6717 CIVIL THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT CIVIL ACTION -LAW APPEALS- OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, REAL ESTATE TAX Appellee ASSESSMENT APPEAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24th day of September 2007, the Court being in receipt of a Notice of Appeal in the above captioned matter, the Appellants are ordered to file with this Court a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal no later than October 8, 2007. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire Attorney for Appellants Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Attorney for Appellee 1:6F t0-,S /rittI LC q?a?r?o7 9A A-AS J\AL Mr. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 5012 - 10/99 10/1/99 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania www.aopc.org September 24, 2007 RE: Jackson v. Bd of Assessment of Cumberland Cnty No.: 1791 CD 2007 Agency Docket Number: 06-6717 Filed Date: September 21, 2007 Notice of Docketing Appeal A Notice of Appeal from an order of your court has been docketed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Court docket number must be on all correspondence and documents filed with the court. Under Chapter 19 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Notice of Appeal has the effect of directing the Court to transmit the certified record in the matter to the Prothonotary of the Commonwealth Court. The complete record, including the opinion of the trial judge, should be forwarded to the Commonwealth Court within sixty (60) days of the date of filing of the Notice of Appeal. Do not transmit a partial record. Pa.R.A.P. 1921 to 1933 provides the standards for preparation, certification and transmission of the record. The address to which the Court is to transmit the record is set forth on Page 2 of this notice. Notice to Counsel A copy of this notice is being sent to all parties or their counsel indicated on the proof of service accompanying the Notice of Appeal. The appearance of all counsel has been entered on the record in the Commonwealth Court. Counsel has thirty (30) days from the date of filing of the Notice of Appeal to file a praecipe to withdraw their appearance pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 907 (b). Appellant or Appellant's attorney should review the record of the trial court, in order to insure that it is complete, prior to certification to this Court. (Note: A copy of the Zoning Ordinance must accompany records in Zoning Appeal cases). The addresses to which you are to transmit documents to this Court are set forth on Page 2 of this Notice. If you have special needs, please contact this court in writing as soon as possible. Attorney Name Taryn N. Dixon, Esq. Michael J. Pykosh, Esq. Stephen Douglas Tiley, Esq. Party Name Party Type The Board of Assessment Appeals Appellee of Cumberland County Martin Jackson Appellant The Board of Assessment Appeals Appellee of Cumberland County Address all written communications to: Office of the Chief Clerk Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Room 624 Irvis Office Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 255-1650 Filings may be made in person at the following address (except on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays observed by Pennsylvania Courts) between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Office of the Chief Clerk Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Room 624 Sixth Floor Irvis Office Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 255-1650 Pleadings and similar papers (but not paperbooks or certified records) may also be filed in person only at: Office of the Chief Clerk Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Filing Office Suite 990 The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 560-5742 The hours of the Philadelphia Filing Office are 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Under Pa.R.A.P. 3702, writs or other process issuing out of the Comonwealth Court shall exit only from the Harrisburg Office. C3 ? . , un, - M ra t t i io • s Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire ID # 58851 0 -7 The Law Office of Darrel C. Dethlefs 6&, 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone - (717) 975-94416 Fax - (717) 975-2309 mnvkoshu ;dcdlav,.net Attorney for Appellants MARTIN JACKSON and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARIANNE JACKSON, CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Appellants V. No. 1971-CD-2007 THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT : CIVIL ACTION - LAW APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND : COUNTY, REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL Appellee STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL The Court erred in setting the fair market assessment for the property located at 116 Ellesmere Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at $2,396,180.00 for the following reasons: a. The Court erroneously calculated the fair market value at $2,396,180.00 by calculating the basement value by taking the square footage of 4,402 and multiplying it by $117.00 per square foot for a value of $396,180.00 and applying this value to Mr. Rothman's opinion of value of $2 million dollars, thereby reaching a value of $2,396,180.00. Mr. Rothman's value of $2 million dollars already accounted for $100,000.00 for the basement value. Therefore, $100,000.00 should have been subtracted from Mr. Rothman's $2 million dollar value before applying $396,180.00, giving a market value / assessment of $2,296,180.00. b. The Court erred in assessing a value for the property in question at $2,396,180 when no other single family residence similar to the property in question has sold in Cumberland County for more than $1,723,000.00 when the property is presently being used at its highest and best use. c. The Court erred in assigning a value for the basement given that the property in question is a single family residence. d. The Court erred in assigning a value of $90.00 per square foot for the basement of the property in question when the County's expert valued the basement at $75 per square foot. e. The Court erred in not adopting Mr. Rothman's method of valuing the basement of the subject property given that the property in question is a single family residence. Respectfully submitted, Date: 6C pf Ys :? 7 Michael J. PASSA ire X Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 The Honorable M.L. Ebert, Jr. Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, Pennsylvania I Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: Cd))be r? pZCx}7 By: Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire ID # 58851 The Law Office of Darrel C. Dethlefs 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 V t! Telephone - (717) 975-9446 Fax - (717) 975-2309 mnvkosh!a:dcdlaw.net Attorney for Appellants MARTIN JACKSON and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARIANNE JACKSON, Appellants V. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA No. 1971-CD-2007 CIVIL ACTION - LAW REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL Appellee CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire, hereby certify that I had the below listed individuals, served with the Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal relative to the above captioned matter on the date written below via first class mail, postage prepaid. ?"' ._.,a °h ?'? "-R f [ -_ ,-'_ C: .. ? .? =?7 _ ?:) '-` OF 's Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Supreme Court No. 32318 Attorney for Appellee 5 South Hanover Street Tel.: 717-243-5838 Carlisle Pennsylvania 17013 Fax.: 717-243-6441 MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON Appellants V. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 6717-2006 CIVIL ACTION - LAW REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL RESPONSE OF APPELLEE ("COUNTY") TO APPELLANTS' STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL La. Mr. Rothman's value of $2 million did not specifically account for any value of the basement because Mr. Rothman did not arrive at a value by means of his adjustments to his sales price, including the $100,000 adjustment he made to comparables No. 1 and 2, but not to comparable No. 3. (Appellant Exhibit 2.) Mr. Rothman implies that he derived his value from his adjusted sales at N.T. 25, lines 2 through 7. However, he did not actually do that, as was proved on cross examination when: (i) He admitted that an increase in the actual size of the first and second floors would not affect his value (N.T. 32, line 5 though N.T. 33, line 3.); and (ii) He admitted that an increase in the actual size of the basement would not affect his value. (N.T. 34, lines 3-8) Of course, this is because Mr. Rothman had a pre-conceived notion that no one would pay more than $2 million for this house because no one had paid more than $2 million for any house in the County to date. (For example, see N.T. 51, lines 22 & 23.) In fact, it is respectfully suggested that the Court should have increased the $2 million value by $446,670, not $396,180, because the court used Mr. Rothman's figure of 4402 square feet for the basement, instead of Ms. Stouffer's figure of 4963. Mr. Rothman admitted that Response of Appellee to Appellants' Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal Page 1 of 2 414 he did not measure the finished basement area (N.T. 34, lines 3 & 4), but instead took the information from the architectural plans. Of course, a plan is just that. The only evidence of the actual basement area is Ms. Stouffer's, as she measured the area. (N.T. 72, lines 10-15) Indeed, since the Court found the value of the finished basement area to be $90 per square foot, rather than the $75 per square foot used by Ms. Stouffer, it is respectfully suggested that the Court should have increased Ms. Stouffer's value by $74,445. (The difference between 4963 square feet x $75 = $372,225 and 4963 x $90 = $446,670.) Lb. The County maintains that the Appellants' position is an error of logic, as well as appraisal practice, as discussed in the County's brief, and found by the Court. l.c. There is simply no basis for the position that the value of the basement should not be included in the value of the property, either in the record, in appraisal practice, or the law. Ld. The Court's Opinion describes the basis for the Court's conclusion. It is noted that the County's expert used $75 per square foot in conjunction with other adjustments for the exposed nature of the basement and the unique view enjoyed by this property, including the basement of this property. (It is noted that the County disagrees that an adjustment for the view of the comparable sales should not be made because the value of the lot includes the value of the view. That would be applicable in the cost approach, but not the sales comparable approach, where completed homes are being compared. Indeed, the standard appraisal form used by Mr. Rothman (Appellant Exhibit 2) provides an adjustment line for "View," but no adjustments were made.) Le. Same response as item l.c. Dated: / Respectfully submitted, By Stephen D. iley, Esquire Assistant Cumberland County Solicitor for Tax Matters 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Supreme Court I.D.#32318 Response of Appellee to Appellants' Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal Page 2 of 2 f 09 MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON Appellants V. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Appellee : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 6717-2006 CIVIL ACTION - LAW : REAL ESTATE TAX : ASSESSMENT APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response of Appellee ("County") To Appellants' Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal by placing copy of the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to: Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire Law Office of Darrell C. Dethlefs Attorney for Appellants 2132 Market Street Camp. Hill, PA 17011 And by hand delivery to: Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr. Court of Common Pleas 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: /4./ // Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Attorney for Cumb. Cty. Tax Claim Bureau 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5838 Supreme Court I.D.#32318 °i MARTIN JACKSON and MARIANNE JACKSON, Appellants vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-6717 CIVIL THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT CIVIL ACTION - LAW APPEALS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, REAL ESTATE TAX Appellee : TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P. 1925 Ebert, J., November 14, 2007 Appellants Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson have filed an appeal to the Court following an order setting the fair market value assessment for the property located at 116 Ellesmere Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at $2,396,180. Appellants now appeal this decision on the following bases: 1.) The Court erroneously calculated the fair market value at $2,396,180 by calculating the basement value by multiplying the square footage of 4,402 by $90 per square foot for a value of $396,180, and adding this value to Mr. Rothman's appraisal value of $2,000,000, thereby reaching a value of $2,396,180. 2.) The Court erred in assessing a value for the property in question at $2,396,180 when no other single family residence similar to the property in question has sold in Cumberland County for more than $1,723,000 when the property is presently being used at its highest and best use. 3.) The Court erred in assigning a value for the basement given that the property in question is a single family residence. 4.) The Court erred in assigning a value of $90 per square foot for the basement of the property in question when the County's expert valued the basement at $75 per square foot. 5.) The Court erred in not adopting Mr. Rothman's method of valuing the basement of the subject property given that the property in question is a single family residence. Having considered all relevant testimony and evidence we find no error in setting the market value assessment for the subject property for the 2006 year at $2,396,180. This opinion is written to supplement our previous opinion in this matter dated August 27, 2007. STATEMENT OF FACTS The subject property is located on a 3.54 acre lot in Whitney Ridge Estates - a suburban residential neighborhood in Cumberland County. The two-story, seven bedroom house was built in 2005. It boasts 8263-8719 square feet of exquisite, unique craftsmanship on the main two levels and 4402-4963 square feet in the elaborately finished basement. Several outstanding features in the home include: stone patio, balcony, iron fence, in-ground pool, basketball court, four fireplaces, walkout fully finished basement, macadam driveway, four car garage, and a beautiful view of the surrounding mountains. The home is located near all necessary support facilities such as schools, shopping centers, recreation, and employment opportunities. Beyond the seven bedrooms, the home includes a large interior exercise room, wine cellar, and a covered octagon porch/gazebo outdoor living area. The actual cost to design and build the home was between 3.7-3.9 million dollars. William Gregory Rothman, a PA certified General Real Estate Appraiser, testified for the Petitioner as an expert witness. Mr. Rothman considered both a cost approach and a sales comparison approach in order to arrive at an actual value for the Jackson home. While Rothman did conduct a cost approach, he did not believe that it was a reliable standard. In his opinion, because the property was "overbuilt", the cost of the property does not necessarily reflect an accurate value of the property. Rothman chose to base the value of the home on the comparative sales approach and chose four comparables he felt were similar to the subject property in look, locale, size, quality, and market appeal. 2 Rothman used a square footage adjustment based on a $200 per square foot standard. Rothman did not assess the square footage of the basement in the same manner as the rest of the home, although 73% of the basement (4402 square feet) was finished in the same manner as the two main living floors. He chose instead to include a $100,000 blanket adjustment for the finished basement footage. In reaching his assessment, Rothman emphasized that there has never been a sale of property less than ten acres in Cumberland County which has sold for more than $2,000,000. He also noted that in order to buy a $2,000,000 home in Central Pennsylvania a buyer would need a household income of $550,000-$560,000. Only 2.5% of Central Pennsylvania residents make an income over $200,000. Between 1989 and 2002, only eleven homes sold for more than $1 million (an average of 1.5 per year). Rothman further stated that most persons financially capable of buying such high priced houses, will opt to build a home rather than buy and normally resale of such properties will bring much less than it cost to actually build them. Accordingly, the high end market is currently in a weakened state. Homes recently put on the market for more than $2,000,000 have either sold for much less than the posted price or have been removed due to lack of interest. Additionally, Rothman maintains that the Jackson property is overbuilt and includes many features that a typical resident would not care to include in the purchase value (for example the full-sized basketball court which may have cost $40,000 to build but would be of little interest to an older buyer). After considering all these factors, and having considered multiple market comparables, Mr. Rothman opined that although the property may have cost nearly $4,000,000 to build, the actual market value was only $2,000,000. 3 Lesa Stouffer, a Certified Pennsylvania Evaluator, testified for Respondent. Like Mr. Rothman, Ms. Stouffer also chose to conduct both a cost approach and a comparable sales approach. She achieved roughly the same figures as Mr. Rothman in the cost approach but also thought the comparable sales approach to be the best for the present circumstances. She used three comparables - two of which were used by Mr. Rothman in his report. Ms. Stouffer took a different approach, however, in her determination of the value of the property. She opined that the walkout basement would add a value to the property of $100,000, that the deck, porch, and external living area would each increase the value by $100,000, and that the basketball court added a $40,000 value to the property. She added a subjective value of $75,000 for the fine view of the mountains and $100,000 for the superior quality of construction. Ms. Stouffer used a $250 square foot standard for the main two living floors. Unlike Mr. Rothman, she chose to include the finished basement footage in her square footage assessment but used only a $75 per square foot standard in assessing the finished basement footage. Using the sales comparison approach, Stouffer was of the opinion that the actual market value of the property was $2,750,000. Both experts agreed that the property is both overdeveloped for the location and that there is no home in Cumberland County which is truly comparable to the subject property. Stouffer was of the opinion that certain aspects, such as the walkout basement, finished basement, superior construction quality, and view added a significant amount of value to the property. Rothman disagreed with this assessment and stated that Stouffer artificially inflated the land value by adding additional value for the property view (which Rothman alleges is included in the value of the lot property) and construction quality. The experts also disagree as to the amount of finished square footage in the basement. Mr. Rothman claims that 73% of the basement is 4 finished, which provides a total square footage of 4,402 while Ms. Stouffer claims that the amount of finished square footage is 4,963. Following a real estate tax assessment appeal, the Court entered an order setting the market value assessment for 2006 of the subject property at $2,396,180. Appellants now bring this case to the Court in an effort to reverse the findings of the Court. DISCUSSION In a tax assessment appeal, the Court's standard of review is limited to determining whether the trial Court abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or rendered a decision unsupported by the evidence. Willow Valley Manor, Inc. v. Lancaster County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 810 A.2d 720, 723 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002); citing Appeal of Marple Springfield Center, 607 A.2d 708 (Pa. 1992). In these cases, the trial Court's role is that of a fact finder, and its findings of fact will only be reversed for clear error. Green v. Schuylkill County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 772 A.2d 4199 426-27 (Pa. 2001). Because the trial Court is the fact finder in assessment cases, it must make its market value determination based on the relevant evidence presented by the parties. Id. The trial Court may be found to have abused its discretion if it appears to have overstepped its fact finding duties and assumed the duties of an assessor. Id. It is within the trial Court's duties to independently determine the fair market value based on the competent, credible, and relevant evidence presented by both parties. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment, Appeals, 652 A.2d 1306, 1312 (Pa. 1995). However, in considering the expert's testimony and determining the expert's competency and credibility, the trial Court has the discretion to believe all, part, or none of the testimony. Green, 772 A.2d at 428. Because the trial Court has this discretion, it is still acting within its boundaries and not acting as an assessor in rejecting all or part of an expert's testimony and determining a fair market value between the experts' values. In the present case, the trial Court properly considered the testimony of both parties' experts. Although there was conflicting testimony between the two expert witnesses, the Court found both parties' experts to be equally credible, and concluded that the fair market value of the property was in between the values presented by the parties. It is an appropriate use of discretion for the trial Court to make such a finding when it is presented with conflicting testimony by equally credible experts. Westinghouse, 652 A.2d at 1312. The qualifications of both experts were established during the hearing; Mr. Rothman is a Pennsylvania certified General Real Estate Appraiser, while Ms. Stouffer is a Certified Pennsylvania Evaluator. Although they had different backgrounds and experience, the trial Court found both experts to be equally well qualified. Naturally, the trial Court also found each expert's testimony to be somewhat biased towards the party for whom they were testifying. In general, the Court found Mr. Rothman's assessment to be too low and Ms. Stouffer's to be too high. For example, Mr. Rothman had testified that he made a downward adjustment to his appraisal value because no house in the county has ever sold for more than $2,000,000; therefore he believed that the fair market value of this house could not exceed that amount. Also, Ms. Stouffer had included upward adjustments for the view from the property, the basketball court, and quality of construction. The Court agreed with Mr. Rothman's assessment that the base value of the property accounted for the view, that the basketball court was more of a detractor to potential buyers, and that the overall quality of construction of the property was superior and comparable to the other properties used in the appraisal. 6 The Court agreed that of the three valuation methods under 72 P.S. §5020-402, the proper appraisal approach was the comparable sales approach, which was used by both parties. Furthermore, the Court agreed with both experts' conclusions that the property in question was overdeveloped. While the Court generally found both parties' experts to be credible in regards to their valuation of the top two floors and other aspects of the property, the Court did not find the parties' assessments of the value of the basement to be completely credible. As a result, the Court accepted parts of each expert's testimony and determined that the value of the basement was between their assessments. In Westinghouse, the trial Court was not found to have abused its discretion by splitting the difference between values presented by competing expert testimony, so long as its determination was not arbitrary and was supported by the evidence. Westinghouse, 652 A.2d at 1314. In splitting the difference between the presented values, it would not be arbitrary to set the values near the midpoint of the range of presented values. Id., at 1316 (Flaherty, C.J., concurring and dissenting). Likewise, the trial Court in the present case did not abuse its discretion in determining that the value of the basement was near the midpoint of the range of values presented by the parties' experts. The Court is not persuaded by Appellants' argument that because no house had ever been sold for more than $2,000,000, the value of this property could not exceed that amount. This argument is too speculative because it suggests that no comparable property could ever be sold at a price in excess of $2,000,000. In the present case, the trial Court found portions of Mr. Rothman's $2,000,000 assessment of the property to be an acceptable starting point; however, the Court did not believe that this value properly accounted for the actual value of the basement. The trial Court accepted the value of $200 per square foot for the two main living floors, as 7 determined by Appellants' expert. However, the Court properly rejected his $100,000 blanket valuation of the basement, which he maintained would be unaffected by increases in square footage. This value ignores the property's current reality, or its "as is" value. Craftmaster Mfg., Inc. v. Bradford County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 903 A.2d 620, 633 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). The completed portion of the basement is elaborately finished with a superior style and quality equal to that of the two main living floors; therefore it should have been properly accounted for in determining the fair market value of the property. Similarly, the Court is not satisfied with the basement's appraisal by Appellee's expert, which set a value of $75 per square foot. The Court found this figure to be very low. The Court is satisfied that a basement's value per square foot is typically lower than that of main living areas. However, this Court found, that even though this is a single family residence, the basement could not be valued as a typical basement. The basement in the present case was extraordinary; the Court found more similarities between this basement and the two main living floors than to typical basements, in use, craftsmanship, and construction. While the basement is only 73% fully finished, the trial Court properly looked at its present use, as opposed to its potential best use, in determining a value per square foot in the basement. Mr. Rothman's cost analysis had indicated that the basement cost was approximately $117 per square foot. The trial Court properly used its discretion in setting the basement's square footage value as falling between this cost and Ms. Stouffer's low valuation. The $90 per square foot value for the basement is a conservative value near the midpoint between the two expert's assessments, and despite the similar craftsmanship to the two main living floors, is lower than the $200 per square foot value of those floors. This Court made this lower square foot value based upon what appeared to be the accepted practice in the real estate assessment profession that basements are traditionally valued less than main living areas. However, having accepted this general tenet this Court found this basement to be so superior as to surpass the very conservative value provided by Ms. Stouffer. It was clear that Ms. Stouffer's low basement square foot value must be considered in conjunction with the very high adjustment she made for the exposed nature of the basement. The Court in finding a higher basement square foot value balanced these competing considerations. Because the evidence supports the trial Court's findings in valuing the square footage of the finished fully furnished basement, we find no abuse of discretion or clear error of law. This Court's decision was supported by the substantive evidence. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds the market value assessment for the subject property for the 2006 year to be $2,396,180. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. ,Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire Attorney for Appellants The Law Office of Darrell C. Dethle£ 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 ephen D. Tiley, Esquire Attorney for Appellee Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 9 c11 C°'3 l rw1 V C-4 CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson VS. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County -?464 - 1,717 C,"'. / The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.1 to 172, and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 11/16/2007. 4 jv. Curti R. Long, onot Regina Lebo An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. Date Signature & Title Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: 1, Curtis R. Long , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the case therein stated, wherein Martin Jackson Marianne Jackson Plaintiff, and Cumberland County Board c Assessment Apeals In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto this 16th Defendant , as the same remains of record before the said Court at No. 2006-6717 of civil Term, A.D. 19 . set my hand and affixed th seal of said Court day of , _rloyember ,/A. D., W2007, Prothonotary I, FAgar R_ Ba=lpy President Judge of the Ninth Judicial District, composed of the County ¢f Cumberland, do certify that Cut-;-, R_ Tnnq , by whom the annexed record, certificate and attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, at the time of so doing, and now is Prothonotary in and for said County of Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and qualified all of whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judica as else her d that the said record, certificate and attestation are in due form of law and mad y?the prop offi Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland ss: Pftsident Agdge 1, Curtis R. Long , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of id Court this 16th of November D, )q2007 -An Prothonotary Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the county of to No. Cumberland 1791 CD 2007 2006-6717 Civil in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Term, 19 is contained the following: COPY OF Appearance DOCKET ENTRY Martin Jackson Marianne Jackson VS. Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals **See Certified Copy of the Docket Entries** .Q O 7 O m N w a 't1 d ?O I a ' -n O O ~ C- J ?n Cwt W d J ?p ?y C] ? N O G G D r A 1` ? 1 ? O" R1 1 0 I R PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 1 Civil Case Print 2006-06717 JACKSON MARTIN ET AL (vs) CUMBERLAND COUNTY BD OF ASSESS Reference No. Filed........: 11/22/2006 Case Type.....: APPEAL - ASSESSMENT Time...... 0:33 Judgment..... .00 E5cecution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 1791 CD 2007 Higher Crt 2.: ******************************************************************************** General Index Attorney Info JACKSON MARTIN APPELLANT PYKOSH MICHAEL J 116 ELLESMERE DRIVE MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 JACKSON MARIANNE APPELLANT PYKOSH MICHAEL J 116 ELLESMERE DRIVE MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF?' APPELLEE ASSESSMENT APPEALS ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE PA 17013 ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries ******************************************************************************** a-7 11/22/2006 1 11/30/2006 -?J 11/30/2006 loZ • 17 2/16/2007 1{ 3/05/2007 J9- 1,Vd 6/26/2007 1Nl 8/27/2007 /y,?,-11/?8/27/2007 150-/S29/21/2007 153 9/24/2007 rSAI- K& 9/26/2007 10/05/2007 60-IJQ 11/01/2007 10-0/11/14/2007 FIRST ENTRY PETITION AND NOTICE OF APPEAL ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - 11-29-06 - IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL - HEARING 03-02-07 AT 9:30 AM IN CR 5 CUMB CO COURTHOUSE - ALL PARTIES ARE TO EXCHANGE EXPERT REPORTS AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING - BY ML EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 11-30-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER - BY STEPHEN D TILEY ASSIS CUMB CTY SOL FOR TAX MATTERS ------------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - APPEAL HEARING - BY MICHAEL J PYKOSH ATTY ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - 03-05-07 - IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL - PARTIES DIRECTED TO SUBMIT MEMORANDUMS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITIONS ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON FRIDAY MARCH 23 2007 - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIS MAILED 03-05-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------- PROCEEDINGS - 03-Q2-07 - IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL - BY M L EBERT JR J ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 08-27-07 - IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEAL - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 08-27-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------- OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED 08-27-07 - IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX APPEAL - BY M L EBERT JR J ----------=-------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COMMONWEALTH COURT FROM THE OPINION AND ORDER ENTERED ON 8/207 - BY MICHAEL J PYKOSH ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 9/24/07 - THE COURT BEING IN RECEIPT OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL THE APPELLANTS ARE ORDERED TO FILE WITH THIS COURT A LATER THANN10/8/07A- BBY M LFEBERTEJR J MP COPIES MAI? DA9/2070 ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING # 1791 CD 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL - BY MICHAEL J PYKOSH ATTY FOR APPELLANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONSE OF APPELLEE ("COUNTY") TO APPELLANTS' STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED-OF ON APPEAL - BY STEPHEN D TILEY ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA R A P 1925 - BY M L EBERT JR J - COPIES MAILED 11/14/07 11/16/2007 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO MICHAEL J PYKOSH ESQ AND -- ----------------- PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 2 Civil Case Print 2006-06717 JACKSON MARTIN ET AL (vs) CUMBERLAND COUNTY BD OF ASSESS Reference No..: Filed........: 11/22/2006 . 0:33 Case Type.....: APPEAL - ASSESSMENT Time........ : Judgment..... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: EBERT M L JR Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 1791 CD 2007 Higher Crt 2.: STEPHEN D TILEY ESQ - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * Escrow Information * Fees & Debits q Bal. Be Pmts/Add *** **** End Bal *************************** * ******************************** ******* * *** APPEAL MISC 35.00 35.00 .00 TAX ON APPEAL .50 .50 .00 SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00 .00 AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 5.00 .00 JCP FEE 10.00 10.00 .00 APPEAL HIGH CT 48.00 -- 48.00 --------- --- .00 --------- --- ---------- 103.50 103.50 .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information ******************************************************************************** TRUE COPY F-:`-.--. 7-;EC R® In Testimony whereof, i i, r? unto set my hand and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa. This ....UP......... day of... ......., 0007 .:. „........... .... Prothon ary a-1? 7/ 7 C,(,(,9 I- / Mr. Curtis R. Long Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 08/07 cr1231 I IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson, Appellants V. No. 1791 C.D. 2007 Argued: April 8, 2008 The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County BEFORE: HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON FILED: June 5, 2008 In this tax assessment appeal, Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson (Taxpayers) appeal an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court) establishing a $2,396,180 fair market value for their newly constructed home (Property) for tax assessment purposes. The dispute here primarily relates to the value assigned the Property's "elaborately finished basement." On appeal, Taxpayers assert error in the trial court's asserted duplication of the basement's valuation; the trial court's valuation of the Property's basement in the same manner as its main living areas; and, the trial court's overall Property valuation for tax assessment purposes. Discerning no error, we affirm. Taxpayers built the Property in 2005. It is located on 3.54 acres of land in Cumberland County and is accessible to all local support facilities. The two-story home consists of 17 rooms and boasts 8,263-8,719 square feet of living space on the two main floors. Significant here, the Property's basement, an additional 4,402-4,963 square feet, is finished in the same manner and workmanship as the two main living floors. In addition to the large living areas, the Property's other amenities include four fireplaces; a wine cellar; an exercise room; a walkout basement; a stone patio; a balcony, an iron fence, an in-ground pool; a full-size basketball court; a macadam driveway; a four-car garage; and a covered porch-gazebo outdoor living area. In May 2006, the Cumberland County Assessment Office (Assessment Office) placed a fair market value of $3,156,810 on the Property for tax assessment purposes. Taxpayers timely appealed the assessment to the Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals (Assessment Board), which reduced the Property's fair market value to $2,750,270. Taxpayers appealed to the trial court. At hearing before the trial court, the Assessment Board offered into evidence its tax assessment record. To rebut the presumed validity of the tax assessment records, Taxpayers presented the testimony of their real estate expert (Taxpayers' expert). He utilized the comparable sales approach to determine the Property's fair market value.' Based on four comparable sales, Taxpayers' expert 1 Sectznn 401(n) of The C=eneral Cmmty AeePCement T.ai,,, tAccPCement Ta,Ar) Art of N,?lR-,,, 22, 1933, P.L. 853, as amended, 72 P.S. §5020-402(a), identifies three methods of property valuation that must be considered in conjunction with one another when arriving at fair market value for assessment purposes: cost approach, income approach and comparable sales approach. Id. The cost approach considers reproduction or replacement costs of the property, less depreciation and obsolescence. In re Appeal of/Prop. of Cynwyd Invs., 679 A.2d 304 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). The income approach determines fair market value by dividing the subject property's annual net rental income by an investment rate of return. Id. The comparable sales approach compares the subject property to similar properties with consideration given to size, (Footnote continued on next page...) adopted a $200 per square foot standard for the main two living floors. To account for the finished area of the Property's basement, Taxpayers' expert added $100,000 to his valuation. Conceding the Property cost Taxpayers nearly $4 million to build, the expert nevertheless valued the Property at $2 million. As additional support for his appraisal, Taxpayers' expert emphasized that no other single family residence in Cumberland County has ever sold for more than $2 million. He also cited statistics regarding the income necessary to purchase a home of this value and the number of County residents who earn more than $250,000 per year. Finally, Taxpayers' expert opined at least one of the Property's amenities, the full-size basketball court, may detract from resale. For its part, the Assessment Board offered the testimony of its expert who established the Property's original fair market value (Board's expert). She likewise used the comparable sales approach. Locating three comparable sales, the Board's expert identified a $250 per square foot standard for the main living areas. For the basement, she utilized a $75 per square foot standard. In addition, the Board's expert placed added values on the Property for the walkout basement, the (continued...) age, physical condition, location and other factors. Id. Here, Taxpayers' expert rejected the income and cost approaches to valuation, stating the income approach is not a reliable method to value single family residences, and the cost approach was not appropriate where, as here, the property is overbuilt. 3 basketball court, the outdoor living area, the view, and its superior construction. The Board's expert valued the Property at $2,750,000 under this approach.' In the first of two well-written and thorough opinions, the trial court' established the Property's fair market value for tax assessment purposes as $2,396,180. At the outset, the trial court noted the experts' agreement the Property is overbuilt and no other County home represents a true comparable. The trial court also noted the experts' disagreement as to the extent of the finished basement. Taxpayers' expert testified 73%, or 4,402 square feet, of the basement is finished. Conversely, the Board's expert stated 4,963 square feet of the basement is finished. Concluding both experts were well-qualified and credible, the trial court thereafter made adjustments to their respective Property valuations. These adjustments ultimately resulted in a trial court valuation between the valuations expressed by the respective expert witnesses. In particular, the trial court adjusted the Board's expert's appraisal to exclude the expert's added value for the walkout basement, the view, the basketball court, and the superior construction. The trial court's adjustments to the Board's expert's appraisal resulted in a fair market value of $2,435,000. 2 The Board's expert also determined the Property's value under the cost approach using the Property's building permits. Under this approach, she valued the Property at $3,925,373. 3 The Honorable M.L. Ebert, Jr., presided. A r Although it disagreed with Taxpayers' expert's $2 million appraisal, as more fully discussed hereafter, the trial court used that figure as a starting point for describing its adjustments. The trial court rejected the expert's use of an unsupported blanket sum to value the basement. The court cited the basement's "beauty, utility, and superior quality" to justify utilization of a cost per square foot valuation for the basement. The trial court found the Board's expert's $75 per square foot valuation too low, and compared that to the $117 per square foot actual cost of construction, to arrive at a $90 per square foot valuation for the basement. Accepting Taxpayers' expert's testimony that 4,402 square feet of the basement is finished, the trial court determined the Property's fair market value to be $2,396,180. Of further import, the trial court recognized Taxpayers' expert's testimony of limited demand for such a home in Cumberland County. The trial court, however, rejected Taxpayers' assertions this fact determines the Property's fair market value, stating [t]o follow such a blind guide would mean that no matter how large or magnificent a home one built, the value could never be more than $2,000,000 in this [C]ounty. While a house has not yet sold for such a price, there is no credible evidence to show that this home would not sell for more, considering its truly superior quality and grandeur. Trial,Ct. Slip Op., 8/27/07, at 8. In conclusion, the trial court explained: [h]aving considered both assessments in light of the current market status, we find a reasonable assessment of the [Property] to be $2,396,180. This figure accounts for the discrepancies in the subjective assessments between 5 two experts and is, in our opinion, a reasonable and prudent assessment of what a buyer would be willing to pay for the home given its quality and location. Id. (Emphasis added.) Taxpayers appealed to this Court.' Upon receipt of Taxpayers' notice of appeal, the trial court directed Taxpayers to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b). In turn, the trial court issued a second detailed opinion amplifying its rationale and addressing the issues Taxpayers raised in their 1925(b) statement. In this appeal, Taxpayers assign three errors to the trial court's determination of fair market value. First, the court erred by adding the basement's separate valuation to Taxpayers' expert's appraisal where his appraisal value included the basement, thus double-counting the basement value. Second, the court erred by valuing the basement in the same manner as the main living areas. Third, the court erred by placing a fair market value on the Property that exceeds any other County property by nearly three-quarters of a million dollars. We reject each of Taxpayers' assertions. A. P?aliminµril?r? xxra nntp Cp?ti?n .41)'?(µ) Vf the assessment T a?xr ra?ztiyra? property to be assessed at its fair market value. 72 P.S. §5020-402(a). Actual 4 Our review of tax assessment appeals is limited to determining whether errors of law were committed, an abuse of discretion occurred, or constitutional rights were violated. Green v. Schuylkill County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 565 Pa. 185, 772 A.2d 419 (2001). While the weight of the evidence is before the appellate court for review, the trial court's findings are entitled to great weight and will be reversed only for clear error. Id. A Y value means fair market value. In turn, fair market value is defined as a "price which a purchaser, willing but not obliged to buy, would pay an owner, willing but not obliged to sell, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied." F&M Schaeffer Brewing Co. v. Lehigh County Bd. of Ap eals, 530 Pa. 451, 457, 610 A.2d 1, 3 (1992). Procedurally, the taxing authority first presents its assessment records into evidence. Koppel Steel Corp. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals of Beaver Coun , 849 A.2d 303 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). This establishes the presumed validity of the assessment. Id. The burden then shifts to the taxpayer to present sufficient competent, credible and relevant evidence of the property's fair market value to overcome the taxing authority's assessment records. Id. If the taxpayer meets this burden, the tax assessment record loses the weight previously afforded to it. In re Assid, 842 A.2d 995 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Where the taxpayer presents such evidence, the taxing authority may no longer rely on the assessment record unless it is willing to risk having the trial court believe the taxpayer's proof. Koppel Steel Com. Where the taxing authority presents rebuttal evidence, the court must determine the weight to be afforded all the evidence. Id. In addition, the trial court, hearing the matter anew, is the fact-finder in tax assessment matters. Green v. Schuylkill County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 565 Pa. 185, 772 A.2d 419 (2001). When presented with conflicting experts, both of whom are found to be competent and credible, the fact-finder may determine the fair market value of the property lies somewhere between the values reached by the 7 competing experts. Id.; Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment, Appeal & Review of Allegheny County, 539 Pa. 453, 652 A.2d 1306 (1995). B. Taxpayers first assert the trial court erred by adding the basement's value to their expert's appraisal where his fair market value included the basement. As noted above, Taxpayers' expert determined a fair market value of $2 million, which included $100,000 for the basement. Taxpayers essentially claim the trial court's valuation included the basement twice. There are several reasons to reject Taxpayers' claim. First, their position is based on the faulty premise that the trial court accepted their expert's $2 million valuation as the Property's fair market value. Contrary to this assertion, however, the trial court specifically rejected Taxpayers' position the Property could not be valued more than $2 million as artificially low. Trial Ct. Slip Ops., 8/27/07 at 8; 11/14/07 at 7. Rather, the trial court found Taxpayers' expert appraisal too low based on speculation that no home in the County could sell for more than $2 million. The expert's opinion was constrained by the comparable sales, which the trial court rejected as determinative of the price for which the Property could be sold. Trial Ct. Slip Ops., 8/27/07 at 7-8; 11/14/07 at 7-8. In addition, Taxpayers' position assumes the trial court accepted the underlying calculations upon which their expert based his appraisal. We disagree with that assumption. There is nothing suggesting the trial court credited Taxpayers' expert's underlying data. For example, the experts disagreed as to the 9 Property's total square footage on the two main floors. Taxpayers' expert used 8,263 square feet, and the Board's expert used 8,719 square feet in their respective calculations. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 31, 76. The trial court did not specifically adopt either figure, but the difference in value amounts to slightly more than $91,000 (456 square feet x $200/square foot = $91,200). Considering this, we cannot conclude the trial court accepted Taxpayers' expert's appraisal as the Property's fair market value and then added an additional sum to account for the basement. Finally, the trial court considered the testimony of the competing experts, and found them competent and credible. Based on this determination, the trial court concluded the fair market value of the Property was somewhere between the values presented by the Taxpayers and the Board. Trial Ct. Slip. Ops., 8/27/07 at 8; 11/14/07 at 6. Such a finding is appropriate when a trial court is presented with conflicting testimony by equally credible experts. Green; Westinghouse Elec. For the above reasons, we reject Taxpayers' claim the trial court's fair market value includes the basement's value twice. C. Taxpayers also assign error in the trial court's valuation of the basement in the same manner as the rest of the Property's living areas. Taxpayers urge adoption of their expert's $100,000 valuation of the basement. Absent the quality of the work here, Taxpayers contend, the basement would otherwise not warrant an adjustment. 9 Taxpayers' argument fails. Taxpayers had the burden of persuading the trial court as to the most appropriate methodology for valuation purposes. Hershey Entm't & Resorts Co. v. Dauphin County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 874 A.2d 702 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005); Penn's Grant Assocs. v. Northampton County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 733 A.2d 23 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). This included persuading the trial court their method of valuing the basement was the most appropriate method for doing so. As noted in its 1925(b) opinion, however, the trial court determined the finished basement cannot be valued as a typical basement. The basement, in the trial court's opinion, "was extraordinary" and contained "more similarities between this basement and the two main living floors than do typical basements, in use, craftsmanship, and construction." Trial Ct. Slip Op., 11/14/07 at 8. Recognizing industry standards typically value basements less than main living areas, the trial court nevertheless concluded the basement here to be "so superior" that a specific sum did not accurately reflect the basement value. Id. at 9. Furthermore, the trial court did not blindly accept either expert's valuation. The court concluded the basement's value "was in between the values presented by the parties" and, thus, it accepted "part of each expert's testimony." Id. at 6-7. In particular, the trial court accepted Taxpayers' expert's testimony the basement's finished area equals 4,402 square feet. To determine value, however, the trial court accepted the Board's expert's method of valuation. In In other words, Taxpayers failed to persuade the trial court that a specific sum represented the basement's value for fair market value purposes. Hershey Ent'mt & Resorts Group; Penn's Grant Assocs. As fact-finder, the trial court was free to reject Taxpayers' approach to valuing the basement. Green. No error is therefore apparent. D. In their final argument, Taxpayers assert error in the trial court's determination insofar as it establishes a fair market value nearly three-quarters of a million dollars more than any other single family residence in Cumberland County. We again look to the trial court's well-written opinions to conclude Taxpayers' argument lacks merit. As previously discussed, the trial court found Taxpayers' argument speculative, noting the Property here exceeds all other homes in the County in quality and grandeur based on its square footage, amenities, and quality craftsmanship. Trial Ct. Slip Op., 8/27/07, at 8. Further, the parties' experts agreed no other County home is truly comparable. In Green, the Supreme Court discussed similar commentary by an expert witness. There, the taxpayer's expert valued residential property at $360,000. In his testimony, the expert noted difficulty in locating comparable sales because newly constructed comparables sales had not sold at the time of his valuation. The expert also testified no one had ever purchased another parcel for more than his valuation of the subject property. In dictum, the Supreme Court stated that while comparable sales may have been hard to locate, the fact such 11 construction occurred indicated the expert's estimation of the market for such properties was not universally shared. In view of the Supreme Court's observation, the trial court's finding that Taxpayers' expert's testimony is speculative on this point is persuasive. The Property has many amenities not found in the average residence, and has 1,000 square feet more in main living space than Taxpayers' closest comparable sale.' We conclude these facts sufficiently support the trial court's determination. E. In summary, the trial court conducted an exhaustive examination of the record before it. It twice systematically and comprehensively explained its basis for establishing the Property's fair market value. Its conclusions are well- supported; accordingly, we affirm. ROBERT SIIgSON, Judge 5 This figure is based on the Board's expert's testimony the main living floors have 8,719 square feet of living space. See Assessment Board Ex. 6. 12 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson, Appellants V. : No. 1791 C.D. 2007 The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County ORDER AND NOW, this 5t" day of June, 2008, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is AFFIRMED. ROBERT SI SON, Judge Certified from the Record JUN - 5 2008 and Order Exit IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson, Appellants V. No. 1791 C.D. 2007 Argued: April 8, 2008 The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County BEFORE: HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SRVIPSON, Judge HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE SMITH-RIBNER FILED: June 5, 2008 I respectfully dissent because I would reverse the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County to the extent that it failed to adjust the fair market value of Appellants' residence by taking into account their appraiser's (Mr. Rothman's) $100,000 valuation of the finished basement in the property. The trial court accepted Mr. Rothman's opinion that 4402 square feet of the basement is finished and adjusted Mr. Rothman's valuation of the residence from $2,000,000 to $2,396,180 based on the trial court's applying a $90 per square foot assessment to the basement's 4402 square footage. Appellee's expert (Ms. Stouffer) placed a lower valuation on the basement's square footage at $75 per square foot, which the trial court rejected. I am convinced that the trial court erred when it established a fair market value for the basement of $396,180 and then added this amount to Mr. Rothman's $2,000,000 valuation when he in fact already had included $100,000 for the basement area in his appraisal. Appellant argues that under the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report Guidelines, a single-family home in Central Pennsylvania without the quality of Appellants' basement would not require adjustment. Notwithstanding this point, Appellant's complaint is that the trial court committed an error of law and/or abuse of its discretion when it effectively imposed a double valuation for Appellants' basement area, and I agree. Had the trial court properly accounted for the fact that Mr. Rothman's $2,000,000 valuation included $100,000 for the basement area it would have correctly set a $2,296,180 fair market value for the property instead of $2,396,180. This Court must determine in its review of this tax assessment appeal whether the trial court abused its discretion, committed an error of law or made a decision that is unsupported by the evidence. Expressway 95 Bus. Ctr., LP v. Bucks County Board of Assessment, 921 A.2d 70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). After receiving the evidence, the trial court makes an independent determination of the fair market value of the subject property on the basis of the competent, credible and relevant evidence presented in the case. Id. In the case sub judice, the trial court made a decision that is not supported by the evidence when it, first, arrived at an amount per square footage for the basement which neither expert presented, and, second, when it arrived at a valuation for the basement area that reflects a figure determined by the trial court based on its own and includes an amount already incorporated into Mr. Rothman"s appraisal. This double counting, or double valuation, for the basement square footage constitutes an abuse of the trial court's discretion, and it is neither supported by the evidence nor by the law. I therefo Xf1N?f??1 ?' ? ? ue. $ £ -z i?d 9- Nnr acoZ ORIS A. SN41TH-RIBNER, Judge Abvi0 oi° Odd 3Hl.40 DAS-R - 2 • CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C) To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed: COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter: Martin Jackson and Marianne Jackson vs. The Board of Assessment Appeals of Cumberland County !7q ~ ~. d anc~7 The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.l to 172, and . attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the number of pages comprising the document. The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 11/16/2007 . C is R. Lon hon Regina Lebo An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed Please sign and date copy. thereby acknowledging receipt of this record. ~„ ... _._., Date Signature & Title ~~~, ~~ ~:.:, ....., ,..M ~. ~.....'~ e,.... ~7 ...,t