HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-06587
j
jl
~
s
l
t
.. ~
C9
! '
I
)1
I
i
j
....
, .
p.
. .
~
NOV 21 ~
tN TNE COUNT OF COj.ON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNT~,~PENNSYLVANrA
;~-;;;--;~~;-;;~~; ~~;;;-;;;;---------7
CO~ALESCENT CENTE t INC. (LESSEE)
c/o BEVltRLY C}\LU'O lilIA CORPOI'lATION
ij. I
APP8~~.nt,
I
No. qti- cP587
:
TAX ASSESSMENT
APPEAL
'I'll( Parcel No.
09-19-1592-023.
-aga .\Slt-
THE CUMBERLAND COU ~Y BOARD OF
,
ASSESSM~NT AND REV lION OF TAXES,
,
Municipality:
L-:nst E'ennsboro
Appel ietls.
"------------------ :------------------x
";;"II,l:I:"::::'!tl'lIlt::",q.Io." ". ",.".". qq.",.... '. .
ORDER
AND NOI~, thio cUt0. ~y ot\.1l4'lft""-~ , 1994, II hearinq in
thtt above-cllptioned imatter is scheduled tor .J.....l~ t, IG'lS""
~. o..:.t ~. 4 'f D' I,' ~ C!.J U/L.0u-d)>>... "-1u .:a.-
,I
I
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
!
I
I
il
H."..
"
ric',' >.
Ii"! r~d
I, .'~i ,j d oJ"
'. ,
Appellant filed a timely appeal with The Cumberland county Board
of Assessment and Revision of Taxes (hereinafter, the "Board"), a
statement of intention to appeal its annual assessment for the
Property for the years beginning on and after January 1, 1995,
Claiming that the assessed valuation placed on the same by the
Cumberland County Assessor was excessive and non-uniform.
3. On or before October 21, 1994, upon information and belief,
the Board failed and refused to correct or reduce the said
assessment as requested and confirmed the said assessed valuation
of Appellant's property of $299,340. A true and correct copy of
the decision notice is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
4. The Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the
Board, and will be aggrieved and injured by the unlawfully
excessive, non-uniform and improperly determined assessment as it
will be compelled to pay a much larger proportion of the taxes of
said tax district (Cumberland county) than as its fair and equal
and legal share or a portion thereof.
5. This appeal is filed in accordance with the provisions of
the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the
filing of appeals to the Court of Common Pleas from a decision of
a Board of Assessment Appeals and, in particular, the provisions
of the Act of June 26, 1931, P.L. 379, Section 9, as amended, 72
P.S. 5350, and the provisions of May 22, 1933, P.S. 853, Section
518.1, as amended, 72 P.S. 5020-518.1, in order that Your
Honorable Court may hold a hearing and a just and proper
assessment in accordance with the prov ons 0 the law.
Dated: November 15, 1994
By:
DAVID J. KA LAN, Esq.
Counsel for Appellants
Blue Ridge Haven West
Convalescent center, Inc.
c/o Beverly california
Corporation
866 Third Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212) 826-6658
Pa. supreme Court ID No. 69313
, .
'. ,
~fICATION
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
,
I
I. . "
r
,
I
!
,
I
I
r
I
I
i
,
r . '.
,
I,
I
I
,.
I,
I
I
f.
I,
I,
I,
II
I,
II
II
I,
I,
I,
"
'I
I,
I..
I"
""
I.
!I
I, Melissa Karron, hare verily that I am the authorized agent 01 Beverly
California Corporation, In .onnectlon with the foregoing Notice of Appeal: that I
8m auttlorized to exeout this Verlncallon on behalf of said appellant; and that
such facts are true and rrect to thll best of my knowledge, Information and
belief. I further understan that this statement Is made subje(:t to the penalties of
18 Pa.e.S. 4904 relating t unsworn falsification to authorltlea.
Datod: November 16,191
By: ~M
Melles Karron
Man ar of Real Estate Services
Beverly Enterprises
. Beverly California CorQoratlon
Corporate Tex Depanment
. 1200 South Waldron Road
Suite 166
Ft. Smith, AR 72919
H
~
ExhIbIt A
~
r'I
'. .
. .
" t .'
EAR~ R. Ke~~ER
CHAIRMAN
ROBERT H. C, ~ISSE
ASSESSMENT' TAX ADMINISTRATOA
NANCY A, BeSCH
YICl CHAIRMAt4
RANDY ~, WAGGONER
CHIEF AISSfSSOR
MARCIA ~. MYERS
SECRETARY
HORACE A. JOHNSON
SOLICITOR
WI~~IAM E. DENNIS
CHIl' CllRK/COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
STEPHEN 0, TI~EY
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR
<!tumberlnub aIouuty 1Sottrb of 1\snessttttut nub ieutstou of wnxes
1 CQURTHOUse SQUARE. CARLISLE. P... 17013
171 n 24().6J:4
October 21, 1094
David J. Kaplan
B66 Thl rd Ave., 30th floor
New York, New York 10022
RE: Tax Parcel 09-19-1502-022A and 09-19-1592-021
Cumberland County Ind. Dev. Auth~rlty
The Boord of Assessment Appeals Order Is as follows:
No Change, Maintain Current Market Value.
ANY PERSON AOORIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE BOARD MAY APPEAL TO THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BY FILINO A PETITION IN THE PROTHONOTARY'S
OFFICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE Of THIS
NOTlflCATION.CII/21/94l
;{J~!I.C.~
Robert H.C. Llsse
Assessment & Tax Admn.
'.
. 111110 Juuut iku..alflla. INC.
I". ..,.
. .
.
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ".:
I,the undcrslaned, an auornoy admlued 10 praclice In Iho court. of Now York Stale.
o ~ certify thai the wilhln
I .,....... has been compared by me with Ihe "rlginal and round to be alrue and c"mplele copy.
I 0 = stale thai I am
the auorney(.) 01 record ror In the within
~ action; I have read the loresoins and know Ihe conlents thereol;
lhe same i.true 10 my ~Wn knowl.dg.. ....pt a. to Ihe moUers Iherein aUeged 10 be on Inlormalion and beliel, and as to Ihose mallen
I believe ilto be true. The rea.nn Ihi. verincalion is made by m. and nol by
The around. 01 my b.llel.. 10 all maum nol "aled upon my own knowledge are as lollow&:
I affirm thattheloreaolna .Ial.menl. are Irue, under lh" pen allies 01 perjory,
Oaled:
STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF
I,
.................."......T"'._~';.:.;;MM'jiriii.:idbi:......,..."'..,..._...,..
...-
-
51.:
being duly sworn. d.pose and .ay: I am
In Ihe witbin aellon; I have read Ihe foregoing
and know Ihe conl.nl. thereol; Ihe .ame i.true 10 my own knowledae, e"cept
as to Ihe mauers Ihereln .Ial.d 10 be olleged on inlormalion and beli.r, and as 10 Iho.. mau.n I believe it 10 be true.
Ihe 01
eorporotion und a party in Ihe wilhln action; I have read Ihe loreaolna
and know Ihe conlenlS Ihereol; and Ihe .amelstruelo my own knowledae,
except as 10 Ihe maue" therein "ated 10 be aUeged upon inlormalion and teliel, and as 10 those maue" I believe it 10 be lrue. This .
verification I. made by me becau.e Ihe above pany Is a corporalion and I am an officer Ihereor.
. The arounds 01 my belielasto aU mailers nOI.taled upon my own knowledge are as foUow.:
I 0
10
~ .
-
v_
a
Sworn 10 beloro me on
19
,....,..........,.........Tiii._~.Mtbi'Pt1fti.iiiiiiMii'._....._..............
STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF
I.
of age and reside at
pn
o :::
IS.: Ill..,. I'" P" '-. .. tMc"'d - ...~ ther .... I". of W1\'kII ......
being .worn, .ay: I am nola party to Ihe action, am over la yean
iO
~O
o
......
-..
........
-.,
-
-
19 I.erved Ihe within
by depo.llina a true copy Ihereol enclo.ed in a po.t-paid wrapper, in an official depository under Ihe exclusive care and
cuslody 01 Ihe U.S, Po"al Service within New York Slate, addressed 10 cuch 01 the 10Uowing penon. at Ihe la'l known
address setlorth alter each name: .
by delivering a Irue copy Ihereol penonaUy 10 each person named below at the addre.. indlcaled. I knew eaeh pellon served .
10 be Ihe pellon menlloned and described in said papers as a I'arly rhertln:
by Iran.mllllna the papers by eleclronic m.an. 10 Ih. lei. phon. numb.r Iist.d below, whieh number was designaled by Ihe .
aUor..y lor .uch purpo.e. I received a .i8nallrom the equIpment 01 the aUorney .erved Indicaling thallhe transmission was :.
received. I also deposited a true copy of Ihe papers, enclosed in a posl-pald wrapper. in an official depo.itory under the
e"clusive eare and cu.tody or Ihe U,S, Po..al Service, addre..ed to the auorney althe !lddre.. setlorth alter Ihe nome:
by d.po.iling a lIue copy Ihereof, enclo..d Iro a wrnpper addressed a. .hown below, inlo Ihe custody 01
Inr overnighl delivery, prior 10 Ih. Int"ltime designaled by that.ervlcelor overnight delivery.
-
"""'"
.......
Sworn 10 before me on
19
..,..........T~.iiiiM~gntd._i:ii.PiiiiIMibliii&ih".'....................-.
,
~ .
\.
-:r ~
r:n '. ~"
- ~
' - ri
L.
N ~ ~
l.'i ~ <::t-
(.....J -.;;, e. ~
~~
Vi .
r. :l "I;
;".'. * '::)- Q. ~
~ ~~ ~ 5
~
<
....
5~ f-l
Z Z
ur.. ril
lJ)H lI:: ~o
ril:;;j lJ) ~~
lJ)
:;lu ril HH
~>< lJ) t>'<P
lJ) rilril
OH < ~i
r..< ut>'<
Ol-f ril r..
~~ ~~ 0 J
~IQ ~ ~~ i
2: H~ 0 " ~ . j r
5 11<lJ) ~ru .., 0 III ril
:>0 z~ !:l IQ QJ lI::lI:: f ,
P III " QJ 0lJ)
Oril ~;;- .-i ~~ o-i t>'<lJ)
~ll. .-i o-i r..ril ...
ril III I =o!::l QJ lJ) I .Il
o " rillJ) Q, .., Q, ~~ N J
~~ ~lJ) Q, III Of-l Q, N f
~ril ell J:: U < ....."o:1lI 0
HH ..... r.. 11of<. J:: J:: ~ ;:l 0 !
t>'<"-' III ~~ 1100 III Ill~!:l o-iCO
0 DO < o-i o-i QJ '" -M i
f-lU I"l . III z~ Q,o-i!> ~\O I
.~~ =>fiz I o~ III QJ < \0 'a
..:l 0 t>'<H l><: Q, Iool I f
IQI-fH rillJ) 0 Q,1'O 0 "\0
H IQH ZIQlJ) . < Iool O.l4N oS oS
.. t>'<";:j ~~ 0 I"l "'l ~ l!.... o-i IoolCO . I
d ~t>'< ~~!::l ~.<=~ 0 J 'a J ' .,'"
;z:. ril I"lfzlO ut>'< '0 i f-l ><...... ..~;~;:~
t>'<5~ I-f f-l ..... .<= N j I .....
Jz~ ~~ f-l > \0 ..... :- o-i .~ .."
Z 0 rilOr.. Ill~ \OOIllN t2
HU HUU I1<UO ~ CO<"'l z......
j :9
t ]2:
· 'a
.Il
f ~
I Jl ~
a ~ ~
r .~ ~
8 "
i ..s "
~m
1
'"
.l!
i
t:
8
g d
. 0
,ll =:
~~
'Ii S
~J
~ R
iJ ~
'o.s
1;1
g
c:l
)
"
~
'Ii
~
...
"
i
.~
..!l
-
...
o
!l
o
2:
f
~
l
1
~
i
~
~
~
i
~
;..
~
"0:
~
!
1
~
oS
i i
a ~
Lg
8
i
~
Il.
-
oS
f
"
<
~
f
-.:
j
t2
"
I
g1;l1
t2
'.
. .
~ .'.- '.,.
..
IN RE:
BLUE RIDGE HAVEN WEST
CONV ALESCENT CENTER, INC.
c/o BEVERLY CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Oft' CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
NO. 94-6587 CIVIL TERM
VS.
THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND
REVISION OF TAXES,
Appelle
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
REPLY
AND NOW, comes the County of Cumberland, and Cumberland County Board
of Assessment Appeals, by Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, Its Assistant Solicitor, and flies
this Reply to the Petition for Review of Real Estate Assessment, as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted In part, denied In part. As Il'dlcated In the letter from Mr. Lisse
dated October 21, 1994 attached as Exhibit "A" to the Petitioner's Petition, the Board
determined that the eXisting market valuation for the subject property should be
maintained at the current Indicated value of $3,991,200.00, which market valuation
Indicates a continuation of the prior assessment, In the amount of $299,340.00.
4. Denied. The averments of this paragraph, contain conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading Is required. Strict proof at trial Is demanded. By way of
further answer, Petitioner has the right to appeal de novo pursuant to The Fourth to
Eighth Class County Assessment Law Section 7.04 (72 P.S. ~5453.704), however the
Appelle maintains that the current a3sessment of the property reflects the correct
market value therefore.
m
<
~
...:l
ll< .
Z . U Oz
O~ Z ~O
~z - <Cil
~p ~ !ii Ii:!l 0_
00 ~ ~~z 1Il>
Uu !:h ::cE-o~ ><~
zffio E-o~
~o ....< zO ><
0 ~U[:: ~ ~ M ~
E-o~:!l :;:...:l ~E-o~ pZ ....
-' ~ 0< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~...:lZ Uz :r:ZUZ UE-o
p~":: ..0 ~~><O OZ I=c(~-~
O~> ~E=: t:J~....E=: Z~ oll ~ 0 if::
UIIl....
~>< 'flu O~~< <~
~ .... m . ~~I!I
~ pm ....< ;!....~~ ~mf2
UZ en .. <>0
...:l~ ~>~ ~~><
2S r...Z ci ~ ~ pZIIl;;: IIlm<
O~ zu25 ....000 ~<E-o
IIlU()U p~~
uoo
.
IN RE: BLUE RIDGE HAVEN
WEST CONVALESCENT CENTER,
INC. (LESSEE) C/O BEVERLY
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
Appellant
vs.
THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT AND REVISION
OF TAXES,
IN THE COL~T OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 94-6587 CIVIL TERM
REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT
APPEAL
Appellee
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
TO: prothonotary of cumberland county
Please enter and note the appearance of the undersigned as
attorneys for East Pennsboro Area School District in the above
captioned matter.
By
, P.c.
chard C. Snelbaker
44 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318
(717) 697-8528
Date: January S
, 1995
LAW O"ICIII
SNELUAKER
.
BRENNEMAN
IJ")
r.n
.
::r=
-'1:
M
.-l
=
If)
::r:
...
-.,
..
...
IN RE: BLUE RIDGE HAVEN
WEST CONVALESCENT CENTER,
INC. (LESSEE) C/O BEVERLY
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
Appellant
vs.
THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT AND REVISION
OF TAXES,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 94-6587 CIVIL TERM
REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT
APPEAL
Appellee
PRAECIPE TO INTERVENE
TO: Prothonotary of Cumberland County
East pennsboro Area School District, a local taxing body
with regard to the sUbject.. real estate in this matter, hereby
intervenes in accordance with law as party respondent-appellee.
I p.e.
By
hard C. Snelbaker
orneys for Intervenor:
East pennsboro Area
School District
Date: January S , 1995
LAW O....ICE.
SNELDAKER
a
BRENNEMAN
Lr>
en
-
=
-'"
,
""
....
<:::>
l.n
'" '-
-,
-, :-,'
,. .
." 11
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CllMBERLANn COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: I3LlJE RIDGE IIA YEN WEST
CONV AI.ESCENT CENTER, INC, (LESSEE)
c/o BEYERL Y CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
TAX ASSESSMENT
APPEAL
Tax Parcel No,
09-19-1592-021
Appellant,
-ngain~t-
TilE CUMBERLAND COUNTY 130ARD OF
ASSESSMENT AND REVISION OF TAXES.
Docket No.
94-6587 Civil Term
Appellces.
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL AND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly withdrnw thc appearance of David J. Kaplan, Esquire on behalf of the Petitioner,
Blue Ridge Haven West Convalescent Center, Inc. and enter my appearnnce us counsel for the
said Petitioner.
, RCHUOLD & O'BRIEN, L.L.P.
EPH PATRICK O'BRIEN, ESQUIRE
torney for Petitioner
Blue Ridge I-Iaven West
Convalescent Center. Inc. (Lessee)
c/o Beverly California Corporation
214 North Jackson Street
P.O. Box 626
Media, I'ennsylvnnia 19063
(610) 565-3800
Attorney I.D. No. 08648
DATED: a. h \'\ b
.~ ...
IN TilE COllin OF COMMON I'LEAS OF
('IIMIIEIU.ANU COlJNTY.I'ENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: BI.UE HIDOE II/\VI':N WIS!'
CONV AI.ESCENT ('ENTI':I{. IN(', (I ,I':SSI~E)
c!llBEVEIU.Y ('AI.IFO({NIA ('OI{I'OI{MION
TAX ASSESSMENT
APPEAL
Tax Parccl No,
09-19-1592-021
Appcllunl.
-uLluin'l-
,
, ~
TilE CIIMBEIU,AND ('O( INTY BOAHD OF
ASSESSMENT ANI> I{EVISION OF TAXES.
Dockct No,
94-6587 Civil Tcrm
,
Appcllcc~,
.WITIIUI{AWAL OF AI'I'EARANCE
TO 'I'm: l'IUHIIONO'l'AIn':
Kindly wllhdrnw lilY lIppcllrancc un hdmlf of the Pctitioncr. Blue Ridge Haven West
Cunvllle~cenl ('cnler. lnc, in the uhuve captioned matter.
Q~}.
DA VID J. KAPiAN, ESQ
ENTI{Y OF API'EAnANCE
TO TilE l'IU)'I'IIONOTAIn':
Kindly cnlcr my lIppcuruncc us counscl for thc
('onvlIlcsccnl Cenlcr, lnc, in Ihc lIhove cuptioncd muller.
er, Blue Ridge Haven West
~
! I' A TRICK O'URIEN, ESQUIRE
-- ~ '-
f~ CJ Ec:
r:~ i;' : :.1 ~...
(0 f):")
"~__
'- .'. :J:.::
p,:~': ..-
~r.' 1_ '.~' -:j
,. ....~
Co 0"\ _,1,1)
L1~ I .-- ':;-
ECL~ r.:'J , .1i!j
.,. L'_~ ~: 1 ~ '...
t... ...- ~,
11- VJ :::1
0 (1. U
- .
.-J
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
______________________________________x
IN RE: BLUE RIDGE HAVEN WEST
CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC. (LESSEE)
c/O BEVERLY CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Appellant,
TAX ASSESSMENT
APPEAL
Tax Parcel No.
09-19-1592-021
-against-
THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT AND REVISION OF TAXES,
Docket No.
94-6587 civil Term
Appellees.
______________________________________x
ORDER
AND NOW, this ,., day of \ ~ ' 1995, this matter is to be
lifted gflnerally from court calendar for February 8, 1995, at
8:45 a.m. and this general continuance may be lifted by either
party when ready for trial.
\
'JI'I,'
J...l
:j !!~ ,j// '95 '
.~
~
,
. .
\
I
,t
ci
,
i
c!
)
f J
f ,'! :~,~
" ,..'
, .
transpire and so that a resolution without necessitating the
court's intervention may occur.
4) opposing counsel does not object to the general
continuance of said hearing.
WHEREBY, your appellant prays for an Order directing the
general continuance of the hearing until such time counsel for
appellant renews the request for a hearing in regard to the
above-mentioned matter, and for other such f as may be just
and proper.
David J. Kaplan
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)
On this ItJ day of January 1995, before me the subscriber,
personally appeared David J. Kaplan, known to me to be the same
person described in and who executed the within instrument, and
he acknowledged to me that he executed th~e _~me. ,/~~
~;/ ~~
MATlHEWR. NEWBORN NOTARY UBLIC
Notary Public, Slate of N_ ~
No.01NE4980719
QU'lIfledlnN_U;~
Commlaalon EJrpI.... 01/
VERIFICATION
I, David J, Kaplan, verily that the statements made In the foregoing documents are true
and correct. I understand thatlalse statements herein are made subject to the penaltlea
of 18 Pa.C,S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Dated: January 10, 1995
~:(j2~ l4f2
Counsel of Appellants
Blue Ridge Haven West Convalescent Center, Inc.
cia Beverly California Corporation
866 Third Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212) 826.6658
PA Supreme Court 10 No. 69313
ExhIbIt A
,.,
c
"f .. . ,'. . ",
" " .
. ' .
!I
,
II
I
I'
.,
!j
I'
il
it
II
IN THE COURT OF. CO~il~ON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COU~I;n, ~I'PENNS'JLVANIA
I"
,
~~-;;~--;~~~-;;~~;11~;;~-;;;;---------~
CONVALESCENT CENTE~r. INC. (LESSEE)
clo B~:VE.RI"i CALU'01I,'lIA CORPORATION :
&
II;
Appell~ant,
11'
-aga~ ,\st-
THE CU~IBERrJAND cou~j ~y BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT AND REV] lION OF TAXES,
If
APpel!fiees. ,
--- - -- - --- - -- - - - - - -f: - --- - ---- -- -- ----- x
Ii
AND NON, thIs .;l;l. 1~Y ot ,11 aw.,j~ I 1994, a hearing
thm abova-caPtionadlvmat~er is scheduled for ~~ ~
'19 ~ _' o.t 8: '-I Ji' Co., r' ........... ~--t/..c.,.,..... "fl." ' :n:
I' '
It
iI'
I,
i
I
, I
TI'" '1= ("....~" r.':"'\....., ,\ PO'\l:rnRi'
1\1,-0 \of.": ~ .. ..,v, I _L.oo_'
1:1 T....~fn::':::: \.' :1', ::L J I~:r.-~'''';'.~ ':.?( my and
an;J IflJ ~.:~ :::d ,~our: .i ('i:::b: Pa. I~ '
This ".1"3"."",, day of ".7.1..u:v:", J9jy"t.
............:...~...."~~ih~~~].....
1\
II
\'
.: : ; , j ~; I : ~ ~..t: : : '11 III t 11 : : . . , " . " , . I' . " I' , I . , " " , , . . " " . . . . " . . . '" . . ~. , . . . ... .
-
-
.--
Gu.....
NOV 21199.
~.~Lf-~S87 ~T~
'rAX ASSESSMENT'
APPEAL
'l'al( Parcel No. :"
09-19-1592-021
Municipality:
East E'ennsboro
, ORDER
.in,.,.
, 1'l'7S'
BY THE COURT
1.5/ Ulr"" i0..~
.;""
" ,
.' "~ r'-
.
,
-;,
, l~'
) +,~,
;.",,' ,
'"
',(
.,:-!
'n'
f'
"'.,
.. "':..' :b'~'j;'
.~., 'i,'.. ..I',l,)~'~;".'~'
,,' .,.:~:./,;j',~('.".'~!;~\)I::':(" :t':'li,\;:'
. ",... ..u It". ...... ~ ~ .....1
'" t 'l' ',' .,.', f. 1~.:.
, .' ',~\. ;'t:~ '::",~".. :. It l:~_ ;",' };(~; .'~'.'i;'1,.;:~1
':;\; ~L';'.'t'!'h.;_'.z"-.ICil:''', ..:.". },'<ili
- ... ''!f'' ,. ',1 '. ..,' . "1.'.'t"
'. I r ' :. t'; ;': ~, ~ >~~'.~ .. ;_;'~~".:!;)
5." \";:r.. - ::~. -.;:'~;.,'~'-.~,~
'.' ". /:,l}:.' ~":,,, ..:~ :_i':~'.'l.::~:~.
.-:'i., .rl .:-\,''';' :,t':.r,',:' r....;):J.~,.
'" . "~.l'::~rj~ ~::';~ .~: ,\~::'~j';'~}{~;:-I~~(~!\
':..... '". '\".~~''':r\l':-'-(~\:''
d.. ~ . - 'l.l. ':.-' .." ~ ,r~"
, . 1 :-'> ,r.".). "'u~'Ji,~
. " . ,Ill l, ,,-...
,'/.-"3 .. '
.
'" ~
.t~
'-'r,
.
"
. l~~',
, '
.' "
\ ,"
',-
J;"
" ,
.1:'
.0+,
:;
'..,','
':',
,; ~'
;,
i! ;,~! ; I
. ; ,l'~
, '.1'
, '.1-,,'.,
'.
i'~
.J',
"
.;'
.--
",
, .
~:'
, '
'.
"
~ '. .
',:
..'-...'
, ! ~4 t
':' ,
r"
~\,. :
'':'1
I.
v,cz..
v-
-
~~
-
-
@ s s .L
4
u :r:
tIl t1l
~ t1l
\Ol ~
VI
t~ t1l
<
11<< 01>1
0.... ulOl Is<
~~ E-<~ 0
..:r \
a> tIllQ ~ ~
... p:~ 101 ! ,
- ;:sO <
~ - 0 \ ,
~~ ~u\Z\ IQ H.
. 1 ~' ,
\:>--0 . i~ .
~p. ~\Ol"" .... III
\OlE-< ~ I III
o . 1Ol~~ .... III .11 .
~i .-I III OE-< .-I .... ! III ~ \
C)\OlO .-I l:l U .-I l:l \
A,..:lll< III ." Is< III l:l lO ;3 0
....__1>1 P. lO ~; P. lO.-I !l l:l Oco \
I"- 0 1>1 0 ~ bO ~ .-1.-1 '8> Q) .-I '" t
.c:o ~U .u lO p.1ll l> .0 !
11'\ 5~< I 1>1 lOP. ! < "'~~ \
-0 8~ 1>\.... \Ol 1OI~ 'IS
I IQ .....~ \Oltll ~ "CI 0 ..\0 i
..:r IQ.... . 1 '" o,,!ollC'l
a> BS 0 ..., ~ ,".-I ",co ! !
;\ ..o:SO od~ ,QIs<O II \
cl 1Ol1Ol1s< E-< :>< ... "8 \
:r; I>IS.... '" i ,Q C'l ill
! \Z\ ~ a~ ~ .0....;. ! ,
,ooQ) t
....UU A ~ co<"l\Z\ 0
I-
\ .\~ \ \ 'iI
a !!:
... !
II "a \ .1\ \
.11 \ l 1
\ \ ! \\ t: \ '<:
i ~ 8 ~ ~
, ! '6 ~ d
, ~ ~ i ! ' ; ! ~ i !
II 0
>' 1 \ ,~ ,\9 = "a >' 1
.~ ! '~ ~
~ ~ 1 ~
-i II'!! g \\ 'lj 9 ~
! ~\ ,~ !
~i\\ ~ \ ~ ~
! ~ - ll'ill I \
0
Dol!l " ~ ~ iJ ~ ~
'<: _ 0 {:.
0- 0 '<:
. . '
-
.......-. . I
.
,..;
19 I served Ihe wilhin''''
by deposlling a lrue copy Ihereol enclosed In a posl-pald wrapper. in an ollicial deposilory under Ihe exclUlive caR and ' ' "",
cUltody 01 Ihe U.S. Postal Service wilhin New York Slale, addressed 10 each 01 Ihe following pellons allhe lasl known, c',i:. "
address sel forlh after each name: " :'~i; ,~,
by delivering alrue copy Ihereof personally 10 ellCh pe..on named below allhe address indicaled. I knew ellCh pellon served ~,,'';;''i II
10 be Ihe pe..on menlioned and described in .aid pape.. as a parry Iheroln: ' ", ;",,:f.~
by Iran.millinglhe pape.. hy eleclronic means 10 Ihe lelephone numberUsled below, which number was deli.naled by the::.'"":,';.:r,,,
allomey for .uch purpo.e. I received a .ignal Irom Ihe equlpmenl of the allorney served indicalin'lhat the transmiasion W-.\,<;", ,"~'
received. I also depo.ited a lIue copy ollhe pape... enclo.ed in a post.paid wrapper, in an ollicial depo.itory Undcrtbt, ,:",:;,
exclu.ive car. and cuslody of Ihe U,S. 1'05lal Service. addre.sed 10 Ihe allomey atlhe address set forth after the n....:' ,,,,"'~: ,
.-.- ::I;iT;_"~,,-
by depo.iling a lIue copy thereol, enclosed in a wrapper addressed a. .hown below, inlo the custody of ' ,:', -
lor overnighl delivery, prior t~ Ihe lale.1 lime de.ignaled by that .ervice for overnight dellvery;'-'
.
. 'OlIO JUl.luli Ik.UMIICAa, INC.
. ,
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF 55.:
I.lhe undcn1ancd., an attorney Ildmincd \0 prllctice in the c!)urts of New York State,
o ......- certify Ihallhe wilhin
. .._ has been compared by me with Ihe original and found 10 be a Irue and complele copy.
I 0 -- Itale thaI I am
_ the allorney(') 01 record for in tho within
~ ..,tlon: I have read the roregoinll and know Ihe conlenulltereof;
lho .ame is lrue 10 nlY own knowledge, excepl a. 10 Ihe malic" Iherein alleged 10 be on informal ion and belief, and as to tho.e malltll
I believe it to be lIue. The rea.on Ihi. verificalioll i. made by me and nol by
Tha groundl of my beliel a.lo all malle" nol slale,1 upon my own knowledlle arc as follow.:
I affirm Ihatlhe forelloinll Slalemenll arelrue. under the penallie. 01 perjury.
Paled:
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY 01'
I,
....,.....................iht._~.jft;;tbi.~.~...."............R.."..
.0
I
'I 0
51.:
being duly .worn. depo.e and lay: I am
in Ihe wilhin aclion: I have read Ihe foregoinll
and know Ihe conlenl. lhereol; Ihe .ame \. lrue to my own knowledae, exupt
as to Ihe malic" Iherein Slaled 10 be alleged on informalion and belier, and as 10 Iho.e malic" I believe illo be true.
Ihe of
-
-
corporal ion and a party in Ihe wilhin aClion: I have read the fnre.oinl
and know lhe conlents Ihereol; and the .ame i.lrue10 my own knowlcdae,
except as to Ihe malle" Iherein slaled 10 be ulleged upon informal Ion and belief, and as 10 IhosemallCl5 I believe \t to belrue.This
verificalion is made by me becaustlhe above party i. a corporalion and I am an ollicerlhereof.
The aroun~' 01 my belief as 10 all malic.. nol slaIN upon my own knowledge arc as rollows:
-
-
a
5wo";' 10 before mt on
19
""......"'..........."Thi'iiiiMiiPd......p;;;;;.i'iiiMiiii..........-...-...... "
STATl! OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
I,
or... and "Iide al
On
O _.
.....
5S.: 11f.1tft I'" OM lIa. " cllrUtd ~ IMlcalI at'" ..... l)'fl 11I'...... _.)
being .worn, .ay: I am nol a party 10 the lICtion, am over 18 years '
10
10
A
o
,.....
-..
.-
-By
-
-
.........'
00I00<y
-
Sworn to before me un
19
..yiii...;oMd.Nibi.p,;;iiid.bej,.iiih..........................
.i
;,>.:.
.-.C,;'
....
_"-,.,
'.
, "~'1
'.:::>-.:'
:<~iX,;;'
~:n1;
c\'
.-.,:~
BLUE RIDGE HAVEN WEST
CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC.
(LESSEE) C/O BEVERLY
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
APPELLANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNlY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CUMBERLAND COUNlY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT AND REVISION OF
TAXES,
APPELLEE
94-6586 CIVIL TERM
94-6587 CIVIL TERM /'
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 1996, the hearing on the above-captloned
cases shall recommence on Thursday, August 1, 1996, at 1:30 p.m., In Courtroom
Number 2.
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
I
Joseph P. O'Brien, Esquire
For Appellant
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
Assistant County Solicitor
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire
For East Pennsboro Area School District
C<'f4<-' ~ b /:J~'-j<u~ .
.J.,. f.
:saa
OIJ...lqlA..J.7l .f;'l\.c l
91./- t.,{;PCr,
JUNe .;1..'(, /99<.,
IN RE:
APPEALS OF BLUE
RIDGE HAVEN WEST
CONVALESCENT
CENTER, INC.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: 94-6586 CIVIL TERM
:"'94-6587 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: REAL ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 2,(J- day of September, 1996:
(1) The common level ratio for the 1995 tax year Is 7.5 percent. The actual
value of the subject property Is $5,500,000.
(2) The common level ratio for the 1996 tax year Is 7,3 percent. The actual
value of the subject property Is $5,750,000.
~~,~/#J
~ -
Edgar B. Bayley, J. \,
Joseph Patrick O'Brien, Esquire
For Blue Ridge Haven West Convalescent Center, Inc.
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
For the Cumberland County Board of Assessment and Revision of Taxes
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire
For East Pennsboro Area School District
:saa
1
IN RE:
APPEALS OF BLUE
RIDGE HAVEN WEST
CONVALESCENT
CENTER, INC.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
94-6586 CIVIL TERM
94-6587 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: REA\,. ESTAT~ TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS
OPINION AND ORDER OF COUBI
BAYLEY, J., September 26, 1996:-
Blue Ridge Haven West Convalescent Center, Inc., flied appeals from
assessments of Its property In East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, where
It operates a 313 bed nursing home. Blue Ridge Haven West has the most beds of
the many nursing homes In this area. Beverly Enterprises, Inc. has operated the
facility for the last twelve years. Constructed In stages In 1966, 1968, '1970 and 1975,
the nursing home Is located In a large building containing sections comprised of one
and three stories. There are 6.8 acres of land. The highest and best use of the
property Is as a nursing home.
The common level ratio for the 1995 tax year Is 7.5 percent. It Is 7.3 percent
for the 1996 tax year. The property was assessed for the 1995 tax year at $524,130,1
which Indicates an actual value of $6,988,400. The property was assessed for the
1996 tax year at $524,130, which Indicates an actual value of $7,179,863. The
Cumberiand County Board of Assessment and Revision of Taxes denied the owner's
appeal of the assessments for both years. On June 20 and August 1, 1996, a de
1. The total assessment of $524,130 comprises two parcels assessed at
$299,340 and $224,790.
94-6586 CIVIL TERM
94-6587 CIVIL TERM
novo hearing was conducted. The Issues have been briefed and argued.
The Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law, 72 P.S. Section 5453.101
m li(!g., requires a determination of the "actual value" of the taxpayer's property.R In
County of Monroe v. Plnecrest Development Corp., 98 Pa. Commw. 200 (1986),
the Commonwealth Court stated:
Pennsylvania case law has consistently held that actual market
value Is that 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 for which the property Is adapted and might In
reason be applied.
We must weigh all the evidence and judge the credibility of all the witnesses.
Cumberland Valley School District v. Cumberland County Board of Assessment
Appeals, 125 Pa. Commw. 649 (1989). The opinion of the expert witness for the
taxpayer as to the actual value of the subject property was sufficient, competent,
credible, and relevant evidence to overcome the prima facie validity of the
assessments. See, DeitCh Company v. Board of Property Assessment, 417 Pa.
213 (1965). The function of the court Is "to weigh the conflicting testimony and values
expressed by the competing experts and arrive at a valuation based upon the
credibility of their opinions." County of Monroe v. Bolus, 149 Pa. Commw. 458
(1992).
The taxpayer's expert Is James Tellatln of Chesterfield, Missouri. He Is a
2. 72 P.S. !i 5453.602(a).
-2-
94-6586 CIVIL TERM
94-6587 CIVIL TERM
Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAl), and he specializes In appraising nursing
homes. Over the last twenty years, he has appraised approximately 1,500 nursinG
homes In forty states. Approximately thirty-five of those nursing homes are In
Pennsylvania. The export for the taxing districts Is Steven W. Barrett, a Certified
General real estate appraiser In Carlisle, Cumberland County. He has completed the
course requirements for a MAl but has not yet taken the examination. His business
Involves approximately eighty percent appraisals and twenty percent brokerage. This
Is his first appraisal of a nursing home.
Mr. Barrett gave the most weight In his appraisal methods to an Income
approach for which he ascribed an actual value of the subject property of $6,722,000.
His secondarv method was the cost aporoach for which he ascribed an actual value
of $7,346,700. While there have been sales of nursing homes In Pennsylvania, there
has not been a sale of a facility similar to the subJect property. Barrett testified that
he had little specific Information regarding those sales so he did not undertake to
make adjustments to the actual sale prices using a traditional sales comparlso;1
analysis. However, he stili considered some of those recorded sale prices, which he
described as the "best possible," as a guide to come up with a "raw price per bed" for
which he made adJustments for furniture, fixtures, equipment and goodwill to ascribe
an actual value of the subject property of $7,219,000. Barrett reconciled his appraisal
methods for an actual value of the SUbJect property for both the 1995 and 1996 tax
-3-
94-6586 CIVIL TERM
94-6587 CIVIL TERM
years, of $7,000,000.3
Mr. Tellatln testified that he considered a sales comparison approach but that
such an appraisal method Is not valid In this case. Although there have been other
sales of nursing homellln Pennsylvania, they are not comparable sales from which a
credible sales comparison approach to the subject property can be made. Tellatln
gave the most weight In his aooralsal methods to a cost aooroach. His secondarv
method was the Income aooroach. Tellatin testified that since the sale price of a
nursing home Is uniquely affected by the business component of the operation Elnd
given the unique status of the nursing home's reimbursement methodology, an
Income approach was not as relevant as a cost approach. As of September 1, 1994,
Tellatin ascribed an actual value of the subject property using the cost approach of
$5,083,000, and the Income approach of $2,489,000. He reconciled the actual value
to $4,600,000. As of September 1, 1995, Tellatln ascribed an actual value of the
subject property using the cost approach of $5,005,000, and the Income approach of
$5,148,000.4 He reconciled the actual market value of the subJect property to
3. Barrett's written appraisal had a reconciled actual value of $7,400,000.
However, during cross-examination he reduced that amount to $7,000,000 after
acknowledging that he had made a mistake Involving Income mix In his Income
approach for which reduced his opinion of actual value from $7,570,000 to
$8,722,000.
4. Tellatln prepared an Initial written appraisal In which, using an Income
approach, he arrived at an actual value as of September 1, 1995, of $7,628,000. He
testified he made a mistake In methodology which he corrected In his second written
appraisal to an actual value of $5,146,000.
-4-
94-6586 CIVIL TERM
94-6587 CIVIL TERM
$5,100,000. Tellatln testified that the large difference of $2,659,000 ($5,146,000
minus $2,469,000) In the actual value of the subject property In his Income approach
between September 1, 1994, to September 1, 1995, was due to an Intervening
change In the Medicaid reimbursement formula that benefited the Income of nursing
homes Including Blue Ridge Haven West.
In weighing the conflicting testimony of the expert witnesses, we agree with the
taxJng districts that the actual value ascribed of the subject property by Mr. Tellatln In
his cost approach Is too low because his deduction of depreciation from his
estimated reproduction cost Is higher than Is supported by the credible evidence.'
Tellatln estimated total depreciation as of September 1, 1994 of 45 percent, and as of
September 1,1995 of 50 percent.o For long-lived ohvslcal depreciation, his estimate
as of September 1, 1994 was 40 percent and for September 1, 1995 was 41.7
percent. As to Tellatln's Income approach In which the net Income that the taxpayer's
facility can produce Is capitalized, we conclude that In estimating net Income he did
not sufficiently consider the short-term adverse affect on the net Income of this
taxpayer caused by management problems, labor strife, and temporary government
restrictions of patient admissions. Overall, we find thE't Tellatln's al'crlbed actual value
5. Tellatln started his cost approach by estimating that the total cost new of
the building would be $8,667,101, with site Improvements of $293,557 for a total of
$8,960,658. He estimated the land value at $592,000.
6. Both appraisers agreed that the nursing home had an overall chronological
age of 25 years with the total life of the Improvements being 60 years.
-5-
94-6586 CIVIL TERM
94-6587 CIVIL TERM
of the subject property using the Income approach Is lower than Is supported by the
credible evidence. Having found that the ascribed values of the subject property In
both the cost and Income approaches of Tellatln are lower than supported by the
credible evidence, we conclude that his reconciled actual values of $4,500,000 as of
September 1, 1994, and $5,100,000 as of September 1, 1995, are too low.
We agree with the taxpayer that there are no sales of nursing homes upon
which a crediblE! sales comparison approach can be based. The sale prices of
nursing homes which are uniquely affected by the business component of the
operation cannot be credibly estimated by making adjustments USing a cost per bed
analysis. As for Barrett's cost approach, we conclude that the actual value he
ascribed to the subject property Is too high because his deduction of depreciation
from his estimated reproduction cost Is lower than supported by the credible
evldence.7 Barrett considered total depreciation of all Improvements at 10 and 20
percent which he reconciled for both tax years at 15 percent.. As to Barrett's Income
approach, we conclude the actual value he ascribed to the subject property Is too
high because he failed to make necessary adjustments to gross revenue which are
7. Barrett started his cost approach by estimating that the total cost new of the
building would be $7,946,706 plus depreciated site improvements of $150,000 for a
total of $8,096,706. That Is $863,952 less than Tellatln. He estimated the land value
at $442,000. That Is $150,000 less than Tellatln.
6. Marshall and Swift publications for commercial properties that both
appraisers' consulted, and which are a guide only, called for depreciation of 33
percent.
-6-
94-6588 CIVIL TERM
94-8587 CIVIL TERM
supported by the credible evidence based on the actual reimbursements by Medicare
for the ~nclllarv services provided at Blue Ridge Haven West. Furthermore, It Is
difficult to understand how Barrett during cross-examination can make a $646,000
correction (the difference between his original estimate of $7,570,000 and
$8,722,000), because of a mistake In his Income approach to which he cave the most
weight, yet credibly only reduce his reconciled actual value by $400,000, the
difference between his original estimate of $7,400,000 and $7,000,000. Having found
that the ascribed values of the subject property In both the cost and Income
approaches of Barrett are higher than supported by credible evidence, and that the
manner In which he arrived at the actual value of the subject property In a sales
comparison approach Is not credible, we conclude that his reconciled actual value of
$7,000,000 for the 1995 tax year and 1996 tax year Is too high.
In considering all of the evidence, and weighIng the qualifications of each
expert witness, their conflicting testimony and opinions, and the strengths and
weaknesses of their opinions, we conclude that the actual value of the subject
property for the 1995 tax year Is $5,500,000, and for the 1996 tax year Is $5,750,000.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ day of September, 1996:
(1) The common level ratio for the 1995 tax year Is 7.5 percent. The actual
value of the subject property Is $5,500,000.
-7-
94-6586 CIVIL TERM
94-6587 CIVIL TERM
(2) The common level ratio for the 1996 tax year Is 7.3 percent The actual
value of the subject property Is $5,750,000,
Joseph Patrick O'Brien, Esquire
For Blue Ridge Haven West Convalescent Center, Inc,
Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire
For the Cumberland County Board of Assessment and Revision of Taxes
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire
For East Pennsboro Area School District
:saa
-8-