Seven property owners suing Butler County over its property assessment appeals system are seeking class action certification for the suit.

Butler attorney William Rodgers argued the class action motion during a hearing Monday, April 29, in Butler County Common Pleas Court. Attorney Andrew Menchyk Jr. argued against the motion on behalf of the county and assessment appeals board. Presiding Judge S. Michael Yeager said he would take the arguments under advisement and did not issue a ruling.

The suit was filed on behalf of AAB Rentals, of Butler; Ryan S. LeFevre, of Sarver, Robert and Karen McDonald, of Center Township; Lonnie and Carolyn Myers, of Oakland Township; Raymond and Debra Oesterling, of Center Township; David and Karen Serafine, of Chicora; and Kenneth C. Minnear, of Harrisville, in December 2021 regarding their appeals in 2020 and 2021.

The class should consist of property owners who filed real estate tax assessment appeals with the board in 2020, 2021 and 2022 who were subjected to or encountered a list of issues, according to the suit. Rodgers argued Monday to include those who filed appeals in 2023.

The issues are decisions based on evidence that was not introduced during the appeal hearing, decisions not based on substantial evidence, decisions based on a mistake or misunderstanding of law, decisions that ignored the law, decisions that did not include findings or reasons for the decision, and denied appeals of high-value property assessments, according to the suit.

Issues involving miscarriage of due process by board members include reviewing property sales or sale listings that were not entered as evidence during the hearing, using inflation or appreciation rates not entered as evidence, not presenting new market values at hearing, making decisions impacting property based on no substantial evidence, not keeping records on the basis of their decisions and ignoring the cost, income or sales comparison approaches to assessments, according to the suit.

Rodgers argued property owners who appeal their assessments receive a decision from the board that states the previous assessment and the revised assessment with no explanation of how the decision to revise the assessment was made.

Menchyk said the hearing was about class certification, and Rodgers hasn’t said who should be included in the class.

Everybody who filed an appeal or wants to file an appeal including people who appealed and received a “happy result,” should be included in the class, Rodgers said.

The judge asked Menchyk if the assessment appeals board could include information about how its decision was made and property owners appeal rights in its decisions.

Menchyk said the board cannot, but property owners can appeal board decisions through the court system.

He cited a state Supreme Court precedent in the Beattie v. Allegheny County of 2006 that allows for class action certification in cases in which there is not administrative remedy, and in cases that involve a “substantial constitutional question.”

Rodgers cited a 2006 court precedent, Kowenhoven v. Allegheny County, which he said grants class action certification in suits that seek a “tidy solution” to prevent the court system from being overwhelmed by numerous individual cases.

He said property owners who didn’t appeal board decisions might have filed appeals if the board had given them more information about its decision.

“The whole system is designed to prevent the taxpayer from going forward” and avoid a countywide property reassessment, Rodgers said.

He said appeals filed by all seven defendants have been settled.

Menchyk asked, rhetorically, if Rodgers is trying to reopen those cases.

“The controversy is moot,” Menchyk said, because the cases have been resolved.

Rodgers said the board ignored evidence presented by the defendants including deeds, appraisals, sale closing documents and property sales listings.

He said the appeal process is supposed to be a “quick, cheap and easy way” to resolve disputes without property owners having to hire attorneys and take time off for court.

Menchyk noted none of the defendants attended the hearing to testify, there is no record of what happened at their appeal hearings and none of them have pending appeals in court.