Kaminski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Assessment Appeals
| Decision Date | 13 April 1995 |
| Citation | 657 A.2d 1028 |
| Parties | Joseph C. and Janet M. KAMINSKI, Philip H. and Frances G. Bradley, Corey and Gail Ruth, and Michael R. and Deborah B. Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, County of Montgomery, School District of Lower Merion, and Lower Merion Township, Joseph C. and Janet M. KAMINSKI, Philip H. and Frances G. Bradley, Corey and Gail Ruth, Michael R. and Deborah B. Harris, and John and Catherine Kessock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Michael M. Baylson, for appellants.
Mark A. Aronchick and Kenneth A. Roos, for appellees School Dist. of Lower Merion and Lower Merion Tp.
Before DOYLE and McGINLEY, JJ., and DELLA PORTA, Senior Judge.
Joseph and Janet Kaminski (the Kaminskis), Philip H. and Frances G. Bradley (the Bradleys), Corey and Gail Ruth (the Ruths), and Michael R. and Deborah B. Harris (the Harrises); (collectively, Taxpayers) appeal from orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (common pleas court) which denied Taxpayers' petition requesting assignment of an out-of-county judge (order dated February 22, 1993), Taxpayers' motion to compel discovery (order dated October 18, 1993), an order dismissing Taxpayers' petition to appeal nunc pro tunc (1994 real estate tax) (order dated September 1, 1993), and an order dismissing Taxpayers' petition to appeal nunc pro tunc (order dated January 4, 1994).
Taxpayers are all owners of properties located within Montgomery County. Following a county-wide reassessment in 1978, the Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) discovered and sought to remedy two categories of errors in the reassessment. The first category involved certain properties which were inaccurately valued when individual assessors made arithmetical errors, such as miscalculating square footage. The second involved the methodology used to derive fair market value (the Board used 1976 as its base year for fair market value purposes).
The Board did not attempt to correct all the assessment errors at once. Rather, it instituted what it termed the "equalization and maintenance program" immediately after the January 1, 1978, effective date of the reassessment. The goal of the "equalization and maintenance program" was to correct ten percent per year of a list of 44,000 underassessed properties. The "equalization and maintenance program" was completed in 1983. Thereafter, properties were assessed using a substantially similar program until the practice was terminated in 1990, when new Board chairman, Bert M. Goodman, Esquire (Goodman) terminated the program. On August 21, 1992, Goodman issued a report opining that 131 properties in Lower Merion Township had been "spot assessed" in violation of Article 8, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which requires uniform taxation. Goodman subsequently issued four supplemental reports opining that 2,052 additional properties had been unlawfully assessed.
The common pleas court opinion notes that since the beginning of the "equalization and maintenance program" the Board has sent timely notices to taxpayers when a property assessment was corrected under the program. The notices identified the dollar amount of the new assessment, the dollar amount of the previous assessment, the applicable market value/assessment value ratio, the market or base year value, the property, the owners of record, the effective date and parcel number. Each notice also informed the property owners of the right to appeal the assessment, as well as the telephone number and office hours of the Board. Further, the common pleas court noted that the Evening Bulletin, a local newspaper, published a number of articles both before and after the program was implemented which discussed the policy behind the program. Finally, the common pleas court observed that during the time in question, the Board had an "open door" policy in which assessors were instructed to meet, and in fact routinely met, with taxpayers to explain the reassessments (additionally, the Board's records were open for public inspection).
The Kaminskis received notices from the Board in October of 1987 indicating that the assessment on their property was to be increased from $45,100.00 to $71,200.00. The Kaminskis timely appealed the assessment to the Board which subsequently denied their appeal. The Kaminskis did not appeal to the common pleas court and now allege that they did not do so because they had no knowledge that the Board had done anything improper until they reviewed Goodman's report.
The Bradleys received notices from the Board in 1982 indicating that the assessment on their property was to be increased from $23,800.00 to $31,700.00. The Bradleys did not file an appeal to the Board until, they allege, they learned of the questionable practices in September of 1991.
The Ruths received notices in 1989 that their assessment was to be increased from $34,000.00 to $50,100.00. The Ruths did not appeal the assessment because they allege that they did not learn of any improprieties involving the Board's practices until September of 1992.
The Harrises received notices in 1982 that their assessment was increased from $19,300.00 to $29,400.00. The Harrises allege that they did not appeal the assessment until they obtained knowledge of the Board's practices in September of 1992.
In August 1992, the Kaminskis appealed their assessment to the Board, alleging that it was an illegal "spot reassessment". On September 18, 1992, an amended class action appeal was filed by Taxpayers on behalf of all residents of Lower Merion Township whose properties had been spot reassessed after the 1978 reassessment.
A hearing was scheduled by the Board to take place on November 16, 1992. By letter dated November 6, 1992, the School District of Lower Merion (School District) and Lower Merion Township (Township) requested that the Board "cease to conduct further proceedings" in the class action cases, alleging that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award class action relief to the parties and that the board members were biased. By letter dated November 10, 1992, the School District and the Township again requested the Board to forego the proceedings, alleging bias on the part of Board member, Dennis Sharkey. On November 13, 1992, the School District and the Township filed a request for a temporary restraining order and a petition for a writ of prohibition, which was subsequently amended to request additional relief in the form of a writ of mandamus, equitable and declaratory relief, and such other relief the court deemed just, with the common pleas court.
The temporary restraining order was granted on that day and later, on May 11, 1993, the common pleas court granted the writ of prohibition concluding that the Board lacked jurisdiction and that there existed a commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions on the part of board members. The Board appealed to this court which, in an opinion and order dated May 6, 1994, reversed the decision granting the writ of prohibition reasoning that: 1) since the Kaminskis filed their assessment appeal in a timely fashion, then all other members of the class could be considered timely for purposes of the class action; 2) the Board does have jurisdiction to hear a class action appeal; and 3) there was no commingling of functions on the part of board members. Accordingly, this Court remanded so that the Board could reach a decision on the merits. Lower Merion School District v. Montgomery County, 164 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 15, 642 A.2d 1142 (1994).
In the meantime, on February 8, 1993, Taxpayers filed a petition for appeal nunc pro tunc in the common pleas court, as well as a motion for assignment of an out-of-county judge to hear the petition. The County of Montgomery (County), the School District and the Township...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
V.S. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare
...tunc must proceed with reasonable diligence once he knows of the necessity to take action.’ " Id. (quoting Kaminski v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 657 A.2d 1028, 1031 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) ). "The question of whether there are unique and compelling facts, which establish a non-ne......
-
Smalis v. Allegheny Cnty. Bd. of Prop. Assessment
...necessity for action was realized. H.D. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 751 A.2d 1216, 1219 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000); Kaminski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 657 A.2d 1028, 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). SeealsoAmicone v. Rok, 839 A.2d 1109, 1114 (Pa. Super. 2003).Smalis v. Allegheny Cnty. B......
-
Mackey, In re
...for these Appellants, the time to challenge the Board's individual assessments has passed. See Kaminski v. Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals, 657 A.2d 1028 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 542 Pa. 652, 666 A.2d 1060 (1995).11 Act of May 22, 1933, P.L. 853, ......
-
Croft v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment
...at the end of April but did not file an appeal nunc pro tunc until the end of July. Id. at 411. Similarly, in Kaminski v. Montgomery County Board of Assessment, 657 A.2d 1028 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995), the taxpayers received notice of a tax assessment that they timely appealed to the county board of......