RT Partners, LP v . The Allegheny Cnty. Office of Prop. Assessment

• Docket Number: 637 C.D. 2022,638 C.D. 2022,639 C.D. 2022
• Decision Date: 11 September 2023
• Parties: RT Partners, LP, Appellant v. The Allegheny County Office of Property Assessment, North Allegheny School District and Marshall Township
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

1

RT Partners, LP, Appellant
v.
The Allegheny County Office of Property Assessment, North Allegheny School District and Marshall Township

Nos. 637 C.D. 2022, 638 C.D. 2022, 639 C.D. 2022

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

September 11, 2023

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Submitted: March 3, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LORI A. DUMAS, JUDGE

RT Partners, LP (RT Partners) appeals from the orders entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court), sustaining the preliminary objections of demurrer and failure to join an indispensable party brought by the North Allegheny School District (School District), Marshall Township (Township), and the Allegheny County Office of Property Assessment (ACOPA) (collectively, the taxing authorities). After careful review, we vacate the orders of the trial court and remand for the entry of an order consistent with this memorandum.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

RT Partners is the developer of the Venango Trail Plan of Lot (Venango Trail), a planned community pursuant to the Uniform Planned Community Act (the

2

Act).^[2] See Compl., 4/20/21, ¶¶ 5-6. Included in Venango Trail are parcels of land designated as permanent open space (open space parcels). See id., ¶¶ 6-7. For the 2019 tax year, ACOPA assigned separate parcel identification numbers to each of the open space parcels and thereafter assessed valuations to the parcels.^[3] See id., ¶¶ 8-9. The School District and the Township issued real estate tax bills to RT Partners for the open space parcels for the 2019 tax year. See id.

RT Partners commenced this action on April 20, 2021, pleading a single count pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA).^[4] See id., ¶¶ 12-16. In its prayer for relief, however, RT Partners sought (1) a declaration that the Act precludes a separate assessment of the open space parcels, as well as further relief including an order (2) striking the 2019 tax assessments of the open space parcels and (3) prohibiting the taxing authorities from any collection efforts pursuant to the 2019 assessments. Id., ad damnum cl.

The School District and Township responded by filing preliminary objections. Specifically, they demurred, asserting the complaint was improper because RT Partners had failed to timely appeal from the 2019 tax assessment, and further objected that RT Partners had failed to join indispensable parties, namely, the Venango Trail Homeowners' Association (Association). Following oral argument, the trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the

3

School District and Township as parties to the action.^[5] Subsequently, ACOPA filed preliminary objections by demurrer, also asserting that RT Partners had failed to timely appeal from the 2019 tax assessment. The trial court sustained the objections, and, with all parties dismissed from the action, dismissed the case. This timely appeal followed.

II. ISSUES

RT Partners raises two issues. First, RT Partners contends its litigation was not time barred and that it should be permitted to challenge the 2019 real estate tax assessments. See Appellant's Br. at 10. Second, RT Partners maintains that it joined all necessary parties to the litigation. See id. at 13.

III. ANALYSIS^[6]

Before addressing the substantive merits of the parties' arguments, we consider whether RT Partners properly invoked the trial court's jurisdiction. Although neither party has raised the issue, "[t]he test for whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction inquires into the competency of the court to determine

4

controversies of the general class to which the case presented for consideration belongs." Blount v. Phila. Parking Auth., 965 A.2d 226, 229 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted). It presents a "fundamental issue of law" that we may raise sua sponte. Id.

RT Partners commenced this action by invoking the trial court's jurisdiction pursuant to the DJA. Section 7532 of the DJA provides that courts "have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed." 42 Pa.C.S. § 7532. The purpose of such an action is to illuminate an "existing legal right, status, or other relation," or phrased another way, to finally settle and make certain the rights or legal status of parties. Eagleview Corp. Ctr. Ass'n v. Citadel Fed. Credit Union, 150 A.3d 1024, 1029-30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted). Unlike an injunction, a declaratory judgment does not order a party to act; it stands by itself, and no executory process follows. See id.

It is long settled that a trial court shall not assume jurisdiction over a matter brought pursuant to the DJA unless "satisfied that an actual controversy, or the ripening seed of one, exists between the parties, . . . and that the declaration sought will be a practical help in ending the controversy." Reese v. Adamson, 146 A. 262, 263 (Pa. 1929).^[7] "A declaratory judgment must not be employed to determine rights in anticipation of events which may never occur or for consideration of moot cases or as a medium for the rendition of an advisory opinion which may prove to be purely academic." Gulnac by Gulnac v. S. Butler Sch. Dist., 587 A.2d 699, 701 (Pa. 1991).

5

"[W]hether a court should exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment proceeding is a matter of sound judicial discretion." Brouillette v. Wolf, 213 A.3d 341, 357 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (cleaned up). A trial court abuses this discretion absent "[t]he presence of antagonistic claims indicating imminent and inevitable litigation coupled with a clear manifestation that the declaration sought will be of practical help in ending the controversy[.]" Gulnac, 587 A.2d at 701.

In this case, we discern no actual controversy suitable for declaratory relief. RT Partners seeks a declaration that Section 5105(b)(1) of the Act "specifically precludes the separate assessment of the [o]pen [s]pace [p]arcels for real estate tax purposes[.]" Compl., ad damnum cl. However, the taxing authorities have not disputed RT Partners' interpretation of Section 5105(b)(1). See generally Appellee's Br.^[8] Rather, the premise of their demurrer and argument to this Court focuses on RT Partners' responsibility to appeal an erroneous assessment within the time allowed by law. See id. at 7-9.

Further, even if there was a controversy, any statement by this Court interpreting the plain language of Section 5105(b)(1) of the Act would not resolve it. To wit, the Act provides that "common facilities" owned by a planned community association are exempt from separate real estate taxation and assessment.^[9] 68 Pa.C.S. § 5105(b). However, "[t]axation of property is the rule; therefore, statutory exceptions must be strictly construed." Borough of Homestead v. St. Mary Magdalen Church, 798 A.2d 823, 828 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). To that end, it is well

6

settled...