Dist. of Columbia v. Square 254 Ltd. Partner., 85-814.

• Decision Date: 24 October 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-814.,85-814.
• Citation: 516 A.2d 907
• Parties: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellant, v. SQUARE 254 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Appellees.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

Page 907

516 A.2d 907

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellant, v. SQUARE 254 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Appellees.

No. 85-814.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued March 24, 1986.

Decided October 24, 1986.

Edward E. Schwab, with whom John H. Suda, Acting Corp. Counsel at the time the brief was filed, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, and Lutz Alexander Prager, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Gilbert Hahn, Jr., with whom Janet L. Eveland, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees.

Before NEBEKER, MACK and BELSON, Associate Judges.

NEBEKER, Associate Judge:

This appeal is from the Tax Division of the Superior Court where appellee taxpayer successfully appealed a second-half 1983 real property tax assessment after the construction of the J.W. Marriott Hotel. The trial court granted summary judgment to the taxpayer and denied the cross-motion filed by appellant, the District of Columbia. The District now appeals. We hold that when the trial court concluded as a matter of law that the assessed property was not a "new building," but an "addition," it did so with an inadequate showing of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact., Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case for further proceedings.

Taxpayer is the lessee of real property located at Lot 832, Square 254 and the owner of certain improvements thereon known as 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.¹ On February 22, 1983, the District of Columbia sent to the taxpayer a notice of assessment for the second half of tax year 1983. The notice revealed an increase in the assessment of the building on Lot 832 from $219,837 to $15,247,257. This was because the building was a "new structure[] erected or roofed during the time period of July 1 through December 31, 1982." See D.C. Code § 47-830 (1981). Taxpayer timely appealed the assessment to the Board of Equalization and Review. Following a hearing, the Board sustained the assessment. Taxpayer then paid the resulting taxes of $161,107.02 and appealed to the Superior Court. See id.; D.C.Code § 47-3303 (1981).

Before the Tax Division, taxpayer argued in support of its motion for summary judgment that the assessed property was not a "new building" subject to a supplemental second-half assessment, but instead, an "addition" to existing improvements, subject only to supplemental annual assessment. This case turns squarely upon a determination whether the assessed property is an "addition" or a "new building." Compare id., § 47-830 with § 47-829.² In support of this contention, taxpayer relied in part upon the affidavit of G. Neel Teague, former Vice President and Assistant Project Director of Quadrangle Development Corporation. Teague stated that the assessed property was constructed as an addition to existing improvements on Lot 831 of Square 254, which is located at 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. This conclusion was based at least in part upon a building permit granted by the Department of Licenses for the construction of an addition at that location. The permit was in response to the application which described the construction as an addition.

The District disagreed, relying principally upon the affidavits of Dan Evans, Acting Director of the Engineering Division/Development Administration of the District of Columbia Department of Housing and Community Development, and Joseph F. Morey, a District assessor. Both Evans and Morey stated that the assessed property was a "new building" and not an "addition." This determination was based in part on the fact that the assessed property, consisting of approximately 1,500,000 square feet, dwarfed the 53,000 square foot National Theatre to which it was assertedly added. The National Theatre is located at 1321 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Morey stated further that the key concept differentiating an addition from a new building is whether the original building and the addition are joined together into a single unit, evidenced by the sharing of a common entrance, circulation, or other functional integration.

The trial court concluded that the assessed property and the existing structure at 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue to which it was added, were "comprised of constituent parts that blend together into an integrated, harmonious development." The trial court then concluded that this "addition" was improperly taxed as a "new building." The court then granted the taxpayer's motion for summary judgment. We hold this to be error for the respective positions of the taxpayer and the District, as expressed in the affidavits, demonstrate a factual dispute on the central issue in this case.

The trial court's role on summary judgment is not to resolve fact issues, but rather, to determine if the record demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact from which the factfinder could find for the nonmoving party. Holland v. Hannan, 456 A.2d 807 (D.C. 1983); Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078, 100 S.Ct. 1028, 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980).

We express no opinion on the question whether the affidavits in this case recite admissible testimony. See Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(e) and Super.Ct.Tax Div.R. 3(a). The opinions expressed by...