A group of taxpayers challenging the constitutionality of Beaver County's property tax assessment system did not need to show evidence of specific harm to their properties, the Commonwealth Court has ruled.

On Dec. 18, a three-judge panel of the appeals court unanimously ruled in Betters v. Beaver County to uphold a Beaver County trial judge's ruling that ordered a countywide reassessment by 2020. The trial court had agreed with the plaintiffs that the county violated the uniformity clause of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Consolidated County Assessment Law by using 1982 as its base year for property valuation and by failing to uniformly apply its valuation method.

Writing for the Commonwealth Court, Judge Michael Wojcik rejected the county's argument that a taxpayer is only entitled to relief under the uniformity clause if it can show its property was improperly assessed at a higher percentage of fair market value than others.

“Having challenged the system as a whole, taxpayers did not pursue multiple, duplicative lawsuits based upon individual property tax assessment appeals,” Wojcik said in the court's precedential opinion. ”Consequently, evidence of a harm or damage personal to them was not required.”

Wojcik was joined by Judge Robert Simpson and Senior Judge James Gardner Colins.

The county had pointed to three Commonwealth Court rulings to support its argument that the plaintiffs needed to show individual harm: In re Sullivan from 2012, Smith v. Carbon County Board of Assessment from 2010 and Garrett Group v. County of Schuylkill from 1995.

But Wojcik said each of those cases involved taxpayers who were challenging their individual assessments.

“In contrast, taxpayers here filed a mandamus action challenging the entire statutory scheme of valuation, not their individual assessments, as violative of the uniformity clause and Assessment Law,” Wojcik said. ”They have asserted mass misassessment in the county.”

Wojcik said a mandamus action “is appropriate if it is instituted to compel official performance of a duty and where there is a legal right in the plaintiff and corresponding duty in the defendant.”

The Commonwealth Court also waved off the county's argument that the trial judge improperly allowed objected-to expert testimony into evidence.

The county had contended that the testimony of plaintiffs expert Robert Denne should have been barred because the plaintiffs failed to clearly articulate the data that formed the basis for Denne's conclusion that the county's assessments were not uniform.

Both Denne and another plaintiffs expert, Joseph Nardone, compiled reports, according to Wojcick. They worked as part of a team with Daniel Anderson and Michael Suley that set out to use sales data to determine whether Beaver County's valuation method was utilizing accurate and uniform assessments.

Wojcik said it was up to the county to challenge the basis for the expert testimony put forward by the plaintiffs and it failed to do so.

“The county was in possession of the reports prepared by both Nardone and Denne, and fully aware of the data relied upon, yet chose not to subpoena Suley or Anderson to testify or present any evidence to refute the testimony of Denne,” Wojcik said. ”In response to the county's evidentiary objections, the trial court afforded the county the opportunity to continue the hearing to call additional witnesses, which it declined.”

Counsel for the plaintiffs, Robert Dappenbrook of H.R.D. Litigation Group in Alquippa, could not be reached for comment. Beaver County solicitor Garen Fedeles also could not be reached.

(Copies of the 35-page opinion in Betters v. Beaver County, PICS No. 18-1580, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)