Practice — Appeal from real estate tax assessment — Lack of uniformity — Evidence — Insufficiency.
In this real estate tax assessment case in which the property owner complained that there was a lack of uniformity in the assessment of his property but his evidence consisted of the testimony of a real estate expert whose testimony the hearing judge found was vague and of little or no value, and he sustained the tax assessment, it was Held that the record did not disclose any clear abuse of discretion or error of law; and the order was affirmed.
OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BELL, February 25, 1965:
Munter, taxpayer and owner of property in the City of Pittsburgh, appeals from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas which sustained the tax assessment of his property. The Board offered in evidence the assessment of Munter's property with a breakdown of the valuation and assessment into (a) building, and (b) land.
Munter contends that there was a lack of uniformity in the assessment of his property and consequently a denial of his Constitutional rights.
In order to establish lack of uniformity, Munter relies upon the testimony of a real estate expert whose testimony the hearing Judge found was vague and of little or no value. We have examined the record and find no clear abuse of discretion or error of law.
Order affirmed.