Washington County Real Estate Tax Re-Assessments: Appeals DEADLINE This Summer

Frank Kosir, Jr.
412-456-2825
fk@muslaw.com

Property owners in Washington County will soon be receiving notices of real estate reassessments. This will mark the first County-wide reassessment in Washington County since 1981. County and municipal taxes will be calculated based on the new valuations starting on January 1, 2017, and school taxes will be calculated on these new values starting on July 1, 2017.

Washington County assessments are currently based on 25% of a parcel's fair market value. However, after the reassessment, the assessments will be based on 100% of the fair market value. For example, under the current system, a property valued at $200,000.00 is assessed at $50,000.00. However, after the reassessment, a property valued at $200,000.00 will be assessed at $200,000.00. As a result, most property owners will see a significant increase in the assessed values of their properties. However, this does not translate into a commensurate increase in real estate taxes, as Pennsylvania law prohibits school districts from receiving a windfall in total taxes collected from a reassessment, and municipalities cannot receive more than a five percent (5%) increase in total taxes collected as a result of the reassessment.

The first notice that property owners will receive will be a Notice of Informal Review, which was scheduled to be mailed to each property owner in late March or early April of 2016, depending upon the municipality in which their property is located. This Notice will include both a new assessed valuation of the property, as well as a description of the property.

Any property owner who believes that the notice incorrectly describes their property will have the opportunity to request an informal review with Tyler Technologies, the firm that the County hired to conduct the reassessment. The sole purpose of the informal review is to address any errors in the assessment records, such as the total square footage of the structure, total number of rooms, total number of garages, etc. The informal review process does not specifically address valuation, and property owners will not have an opportunity to present evidence of value at the informal review.

Following the completion of informal reviews, on July 1, 2016, the County will issue a Change of Assessment Notice, setting forth the final assessed value for the property. Property owners will have forty (40) days from the date of this notice (August 10, 2016) to file a formal assessment appeal with the Washington County Tax Revenue Department; although, the Department has indicated that the deadline for filing appeals may be extended to September 1, 2016. Failure to participate in the informal review process will not impact a property owner's right to pursue an appeal. At the formal hearing, property owners will be able to present evidence in opposition to the assessed value. This evidence can include, but is not limited to, sales of comparable properties, defects in the structure or in the condition of the land, and negative aspects of the property's location. Following the appeal hearing, the Department will issue a decision, and any aggrieved party will have 30 days to appeal that decision to the Washington County Court of Common Pleas.

At Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP, our experience and hard work can help property owners through the appeal process, possibly saving property owners money, by obtaining a lower assessed value. While every case is unique, factors such as the size and use of the property, comparable sales of properties in the area, and age and nature of structures in the property have an impact on the assessed value. It is important to evaluate the possibility of a tax assessment appeal and to consider obtaining an independent appraisal when you believe that your property was inaccurately assessed. Analysis of the accuracy of the property assessment is an essential component to managing your valuable real estate assets.

Three MUS Attorneys Candidates in This Year's ACBA Election

Voting for the ACBA's annual election began on Tuesday, April 19, and will close at 5 p.m. on Monday, May 2.

Three Meyer, Unkovic & Scott attorneys are candidates in this year’s election: Jim Mall is running for Treasurer; Nick Bell is running for the Judiciary Committee and Young Lawyers Division Secretary; and Ron Hicks is running for the Board of Governors.

ACBA Members who are eligible to vote (active and honorary members only) were emailed their login credentials for the voting website earlier this week. If you did not receive your login credentials, please email Michele Greenway (Director of Membership & CLE) at mgreenway@acba.org.

Kevin Israel’s article, “Is it time for PA businesses to restructure?” recently appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. You can access the online version using this link.

Internet Law Update 2016

David Oberdick will be a Faculty presenter at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s “Internet Law Update 2016”. The seminar takes place on Monday, April 18 at the PBI Professional Development Conference Center located in the Heinz 57 Center, 339 Sixth Ave., 7th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Use this link for more info.

MUS Welcomes New Human Resources Manager

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott announced today that Leeanne Smollen recently joined the firm as the new human resources manager.

Prior to joining Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, Smollen worked as an account manager at Seubert and Associates, where she was a group employee benefits consultant and strategic partner who worked with regional clients with 50-100+ employees. Smollen has also worked as a human resources manager at Nicholson Construction, as a site manager for the YMCA Child Care Program, as well as Director for several preschools in the Pittsburgh area.

Smollen graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in psychology from Robert Morris University. She went on to earn a Human Resources Generalist graduate certificate and a Master of Science degree in human resources management from La Roche College.

Smollen is a member of the Society for Human Resource Management and the Pittsburgh Human Resources Association.

She currently resides in Ross Township, Pennsylvania.

Construction Advisory - Carefully Review Indemnity and Insurance Provisions

New Case Cautions Owners and Contractors to Carefully Review Indemnity and Insurance Provisions in Construction Contracts

By: Matthew R. Lasek, Timothy C. Quinn

Are you aware of the possible consequences of the indemnity and insurance language in your construction contract?  Will you be covered for your own or a third party's negligence?  Will you be required to indemnify another party for your acts or the acts of a third party?  Finally, how will your insurance and the insurance of others protect you?

A recent case from the Pennsylvania Superior Court serves as a stark reminder to owners and contractors alike that you should seek legal advice when drafting and reviewing the indemnity and insurance provisions in a contract.  In Burlington Coat Factory of Pa., LLC v. Constr. Mgmt. Co., LLC, 126 A.3d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2015), an employee of a subcontractor sustained injuries during renovations of a retail store.  The employee claimed that his injuries were caused by the owner's negligent maintenance of a freight elevator.  The owner settled with the employee, then sought reimbursement from the contractor under the indemnity and insurance provisions in the construction contract.  The owner claimed that the contractor was required to reimburse the owner for the entire settlement amount, including amounts that could be attributed to the negligence of the subcontractor and even to the owner itself.  When the contractor refused, the owner filed a lawsuit claiming that the contractor breached the construction contract by refusing to indemnify the owner and failing to obtain insurance coverage required by the contract which could have protected the owner.

Pivotal to the Burlington Coat Factory case was the fact that the construction contract in question had two indemnification provisions.  One required the contractor to indemnify the owner "to the extent caused in whole or in part by negligent acts or omissions of the Contractor, a Subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable[.]"  The second indemnity clause was stated more broadly and was not limited to "the extent caused in whole or in part by negligent acts or omissions of the contractor, a Subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable[.]"  Under the second, broader provision, the owner argued that, regardless of who was at fault, the contractor was required to reimburse the owner for all costs associated with the claim by the injured individual.

The court disagreed.  It held that, because the owner drafted the contract, the conflicting indemnity provisions would be interpreted against the owner and the first, more-narrow indemnity provision would prevail.  Therefore, while the contractor would be liable for its own negligence and that of its subcontractors in failing to properly train employees on the use of the freight elevator, the contractor was not responsible for costs caused by the owner's own negligence in maintaining the elevator.

The court in the Burlington Coat Factory case also addressed three topics important to construction contracts.  First, the court decided that, based on the language of the construction contract, the contractor had an obligation to obtain insurance that covered the contractor's indemnity obligations.  Second, the court decided that, contrary to the contractor's suggestion, the owner would not waive its indemnification rights by settling the case with the injured employee unless that settlement was unreasonable. Finally, the court provides a reminder of how important it is to use the correct party names in a construction contract in order to ensure that the parties can enforce the agreement.

The Burlington Coat Factory case provides owners and contractors an important warning of how the specific wording of a construction contract can dramatically alter the rights and liabilities of the parties.  The case also reminds us that more is not necessarily better, especially when it comes to the addition of potentially conflicting indemnity provisions.  In addition to the issues raised by the court in the Burlington Coat Factory case, there are many other considerations that owners and contractors should keep in mind when reviewing and revising indemnity and insurance provisions in a construction agreement.  If you are wondering how these and other rules affect your construction contract, please feel free to contact us to arrange a meeting and discuss the matter.

MUS Attorney Ashley Wilkinson Recognized as Robert Morris University 2016 Distinguished Alumna

Ashley L. Wilkinson
412-456-2530
alw@muslaw.com

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott announced today that Robert Morris University School of Communications and Information Systems has selected attorney Ashley L. Wilkinson as a 2016 Distinguished Alumna.

Each year, Robert Morris University’s School of Communications and Information Systems honors high achieving alumni from all majors. Robert Morris University will recognize Wilkinson on April 10, 2016 for her accomplishments in the legal field and for the distinction she brings to her profession and the university. Wilkinson is a 2012 graduate of Robert Morris University, and received a bachelor’s degree in English with a minor in Legal Studies.

Wilkinson is an associate at Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP. She works with clients on litigation and dispute resolution. Prior to joining the firm, Wilkinson served as a 2014 summer associate, where she worked on a variety of issues. While in school at Duquesne University School of Law, she served as a member of the Pro Bono Urban Development Clinic.

Wilkinson has received numerous scholarships and awards, including the Hardiman Scholarship, the Honorable Carol Los Mansmann Scholarship, the Honorable Carol Los Mansmann Endowed Student Resource Fund, the Law School Scholarship for Excellence and the Outstanding Oral Argument Award. The CALI Excellence for the Future Award also recognized Wilkinson for having the highest score in her law school class in the areas of Criminal Law and Procedure, Sales, Estates and Trusts and Core Competencies II.

While in law school, Wilkinson served as treasurer of the Women’s Law Association, junior staff member and production editor of the Duquesne Law Review and student ambassador to the Dean. She also worked as a research assistant and studied abroad in the summer of 2013.

Wilkinson resides on the South Side of Pittsburgh.