Homeowners sue Allegheny County over assessment appeal practices
Eight homeowners sued Allegheny County and the Board of Property Assessment and Review on Tuesday, blasting the appeals process and sending the much-maligned property reassessment back to court.
The homeowners — whose residences are in Franklin Park, West Mifflin, Churchill, Baldwin Borough and Shaler — claim in a lawsuit that hearing officers from the board improperly ignore solid evidence from homeowners appealing the property reassessments that the county did last year. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that certified appraisals that homeowners present as evidence are not properly considered and that homeowners get no explanation why such evidence is not accepted.
“The best evidence is a certified real estate appraisal, and when no other evidence is offered, the hearing officer should set the value at the (appraisal) value,” said attorney Grey Pratt, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.
Pratt said he wants the county to go back through its appeals and correct the cases in which he says the outcome is flawed because the appraisals weren't considered.
Amie Downs, spokeswoman for county Executive Rich Fitzgerald, declined to comment. David Montgomery, solicitor for the assessment board, did not return a call for comment.
Plaintiff Joseph Stivorich, 77, of Shaler, said a certified professional appraisal set the value of his home at $142,000; the hearing officer set the value at about $174,000.
“I don't think it was proper,” he said. “That's why I felt I wanted to pursue it.”
In the Churchill appeal, the county first assessed the property at $420,200, but the owner's appraisal was $360,000. The hearing officer set the assessment at $385,600, he said. The cost of the certified appraisal ranges from $275 to $450, Pratt said.
“Judge (R. Stanton) Wettick will have to decide whether this applies retroactively to everybody in the county or just the named plaintiffs,” Pratt said.
The case is filed as a class-action suit. If the judge approves that, it would open to everyone in the county in a similar situation.
Charles Utz, 87, of Pine, who is not part of the lawsuit but said he's appealing assessments on four rental properties, said the entire reassessment has been a problem.
“They raised it too much at one time,” Utz said. “At 87, I don't need this problem.”
The issue has a long history in court.A different group of homeowners sparked the reassessment because they filed a lawsuit in 2005, claiming the county's base-year system was unconstitutional. Fitzgerald and former Executive Dan Onorato opposed the reassessment, but Wettick and the state Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs claim that case law dictates that a certified appraisal trumps the county's assessed value and that if a taxing body presents no other evidence, a homeowner's assessed value should be set at the certified appraised value. Pratt did not name the specific case,. A hearing on the matter could happen as soon as Jan. 18, Pratt said.
The lawsuit states that although some hearing officers accept certified appraisals as credible evidence, others disregard it, “merely selecting a value, apparently out of ‘thin air,' as the appropriate value of the property.” The plaintiffs also claim that some hearing officers don't meet the county's qualifications to hold the job.
Problems with the assessment board surfaced last month when Montgomery, the solicitor, said about 100 people received erroneous results from their appeals because of a computer glitch.
Bobby Kerlik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7886 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Syrian border town emerges as pivot point in Islamic State fight
- Penguins’ Crosby OK with Neal comments about trade
- Penguins rebound with shutout of Predators
- CDC’s misinformation spreads faster than Ebola virus
- Pirates must weigh risk, reward in attempt to sign Martin
- Pa. Supreme Court in ‘sad state’ as scandals tarnish reputation
- For Luck family, a father-son success story
- Fenced-in deer hunts spark debate
- Starkey: Chryst missed his only shot
- Gibsonia’s Saad on ascent to NHL stardom
- D.C. elites miss signs pointing to GOP Senate