Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-6717 Civil (2) MARTIN JACKSON and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARIANNE JACKSON, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Appellants : PENNSYLVANIA : : vs. : 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 419, 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 5 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 8 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. Dethlefs 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire Attorney for Appellee Frey & Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 9