| THOMAS & KATHERINE KOWENHOVEN, ROBERT & MICHELE DEWITT and DANIEL & CAROL HOLTGRAVER,
Plaintiffs, vs. THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY and THE BOARD OF PROPERTY ASSESSMENT, APPEALS AND REVIEW OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Defendants. |
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION NO. GD 02-21763 Counsel of Record for this Party: |
In January of 2003, John Silvestri filed a Class Action Complaint to remedy due process violations in the Assessment Board hearing process. The violations involve the Board of Assessment staff and Allegheny County staff adding evidence to the decision making process after a hearing ends for the purpose of justifying not decreasing an assessment. Such procedures deprive property owners their rights to object to improper evidence, to confront and cross-examine the persons submitting the evidence and to rebut the evidence.
The County and the Assessment Board filed Objections to the lawsuit, raising legal technicallities which have no merit. The County and the Assessment Board also contend that because Assessment Board decisions may be appealed for a hearing de novo to Common Pleas Court, due process does not matter. Roddy and Onorato both opposed fairnes in property owner appeal hearings. John Silvestri's Brief cites the law which favors due process procedures to obtain fairness in hearings.
The case was eventially argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and a decision was made in 2006 in favor of the property owners.
This case is similar to an earlier Class Action lawsuit brought in 2000 by John Silvestri on behalf of property owners against Assessment Board. In this earlier litigation, the Assessment Board refused to disclose to property owners Reports prepared by Assessors and submitted to the hearing file for Assessment Board members to consider in making Assesment Appeal decisions. In this earlier case, the property owners won the right to review Reports of Assessors and either to use the Reports, if the Report was favorable to their appeal, or to rebut inaccuracies or innappropriate comparables in the Reports. Set forth below are the relevant pleadings and the decision.