Shirley Scrood vs Cuvrupp County

The Pennsylvania Property Assessment We-Say-So Merry-Go-Round

What could happen to you if you bought property in Carbon County!
(or really any county)

What will happen if the Saucon Valley School District directs Northampton County
to reassess properties merely because they have been recently sold!

LEGAL = ILLEGAL

Some Background

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In the property assessment issue, the equal protection of the laws is the important part.

Article VIII, TAXATION AND FINANCE, Uniformity of Taxation, Section 1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states, All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws.

Pursuant to both of the above constitutional requirements the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania General Assembly passed Act 21 that defines spot assessment as the reassessment of a property or properties that is not conducted as part of a countywide revised reassessment and which creates, sustains or increases disproportionality among properties' assessed values. County assessors may only reassess a property if any one of the following conditions is met:

All of the properties in the county where the subject property is located are assessed, or

When a parcel of land is divided and conveyed away in smaller parcels, or

When improvements are made or existing improvements are removed or are destroyed. (Any improvements such as painting that cost less than $1000 are not grounds for reassessment.)

Many people erroneously believe that a property that has recently been sold to a new owner is automatically reassessed because it has been sold. This is not so, not in Pennsylvania anyway. It is standard practice in other states. The transfer of a property from seller to buyer does not fall into any of the three categories listed above.

Any assessment that is done outside the categories above is "spot assessment" and is illegal. Having said that...I bring you...

Shirley Scrood vs Cuvrupp County

This situation is typical of the legal gridlock in which Pennsylvania property owners find themselves ensnared. It's kind of a Catch-22 with a bit of Alice in Wonderland thrown in. It's absolutely outrageous. The story you are about to read is true. The names and figures have been changed to protect both the innocent and the guilty.

A woman I know, Shirley Scrood, owns a property in Cuvrupp County, Pennsylvania that she purchased about a year ago for $244,000. Her property is average for its rural neighborhood, the land and house are neither the biggest nor the smallest. Recently Shirley received a letter from Robin Uwall, the solicitor for the Munnysukkin School District in which Shirley's property is located. Here's what it said:

Dear Shirley Scrood,

Enclosed please find a copy of the Notice of Appeal taken by the Munnysukkin School District concerning the above property owned by you. It reflects a request to adjust your current market value of your property of $178,000 to $244,000, which was reflected in your recent purchase price.

The School District believes all properties should be taxed and assessed equitably. No taxpayer should pay more than or less than their fair share. Real estate taxes are based on the fair market value of each property. Unfortunately, during a review by the District it came to our attention that the assessment made on your property does not appear to reflect the actual fair market value of your property in the amount of $244,000.

As a result we have filed the appeal to ask the county to bring your property's assessment in line with what we believe is the actual fair market value. If you agree with our evaluation, I have enclosed a stipulation that you may sign and return to my office. If you chose (sic) to sign the Stipulation, you will not have to take any other action, since the district would take care of processing the change...

Included with the letter from Uwall to Shirley was a copy of another document, the "Notice of Appeal from the Certified Assessment", of the taxing authority, which in this case was the assessment office of Cuvrupp County. Listed on the Notice of Appeal were five reasons for the appeal:

The assessed value of the real estate is less than the actual value of the real estate as shown by recent sale.
The assessed value of the real estate is less than the value of comparable real estate.
The assessed value of the real estate is less than the appraised value of the real estate as shown by recent sale.
The assessment is based on inaccurate information.
The assessment is otherwise improper and inaccurate.

Also listed on the Notice of Appeal were three items shown as the "Basis for Appeal":

Market Value
Uniformity
Comparability

Now Shirley Scrood's momma didn't raise no fool, so after some discussions with her friendly neighbors, Shirley called attorney Uwall. Shirley explained that her taxes would go up significantly if her property were to be reassessed at fair market value. Robin Uwall merely said if Shirley appealed the new assessment she could get the fairly standard 5% reduction that was given under such circumstances. Curious, no?

With information furnished by her neighbors Shirley also told attorney Uwall that her property was comparable to others in her neighborhood that were also underassessed. Since Uwall's letter stated that "the School District believes all properties should be taxed and assessed equitably," she asked Robin Uwall if the other properties would be reassessed as well. Uwall said that the county could not legally reassess the other properties because that would be spot assessment. Shirley then pointed out that if her property was the only one in her neighborhood that was reassessed, merely because she recently purchased it, that she would be paying more taxes on her property than the other property owners would be paying on their comparable properties, and didn't that sound just like spot assessment?

With that, Robin Uwall dropped the bomb. Uwall said that Shirley's purchase of her property was a triggering event that allowed the Munnysukkin School District to appeal her assessment. The school district could not appeal her neighbors' assessments because those properties hadn't sold recently. Even though Shirley's property would be assessed at current value unlike her neighbors' that were assessed years ago, the "triggering event" triggered only Shirley's property to be reassessed. Notice how that exact circumstance Shirley is in is what is prohibited by the Act 21 definition of "spot assessment" shown above, yet the Munnysukkin School District can legally cause it to happen. Curiouser and curiouser.

How does the saga of Shirley Scrood compare to my experience?

According to Mark Santoro, Northampton County's Assessment Manager, the $32,300 difference between my overassessment and purchase price is close and I shouldn't bother to appeal it. He also said that I had actually paid less than fair market value because I "got a good deal." Furthermore, Santoro said that my neighbors who paid $559,000 for their property (which was and is still assessed at $444,400) simply "paid too much."

In Shirley's case the Munnysukkin School District's solicitor Robin Uwall was quite clear that the fair market value of her property was the very price she paid for it. She hadn't paid too much and she hadn't paid too little.

When I first spoke with Santoro, more than two and a half years ago, I naively asked him to lower the $347,300 assessment of my property to the $315,000 purchase price and call it a day. Santoro said the county can't do that merely because I purchased the property, that would be spot assessment which is illegal. In order for his office to change my assessment I would have to appeal it.

Shirley's purchase of her property, quite unlike my purchase apparently, was a "triggering event" that allowed a whole chain of events to unfold at no cost whatsoever to Shirley other than the increase in her taxes that will take effect in 2004.

Santoro told me not to bother to appeal because my overassessment was close to the purchase price. He offered me no hope or encouragement whatsoever that I might have success in reducing my property tax liability.

Robin Uwall on the other hand offered Shirley a 5% discount in her assessment merely because she called to question it.

The Saucon Valley School District wasn't involved in my situation.

The Munnysukkin School District initiated Shirley's experience.

The Saucon Valley School District would get less money if my property were properly asessed.

The Munnysukkin School District gets more money with Shirley's new assessment.

Question: What is the net effect of the activity in Cuvrupp County?

Answer: Shirley's property will be the only home in her neighborhood to be reassessed, only because it recently sold, and that reassessment will create, sustain and increase disproportionality among properties' assessed value in her neighborhood!

Conclusion: It surely sounds like Shirley's property was spot assessed.

What does it sound like to you???

On the other hand...

Here are some court decisions that indicate that even though what happened to Shirley sounds like spot assessment, a majority but not all of the judges in these cases say it isn't.

Vees v. Carbon County Board of Assessment Appeals

Back to the beginning of The Great Pennsylvania Property Tax Calamity Page