Opinion

Charter Behavioral Health System v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors

  • 54 Va. Cir. 246
  • 2000 Va. Cir. LEXIS 341
Court
Loudoun County Circuit Court
Filed
Dec 14, 2000
Status
Published
Author
Chamblin
On the bench
Chamblin
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

By Judge James H. Chamblin

On November 8,9, and 14,2000, this case came on for hearing on the Second Amended Petition for Correction of Erroneous Assessments of Real Estate filed by the Petitioners, Charter Behavioral Health System at Springwood, L.L.C., and others alleging that the Defendant, Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County (the “Board”), erroneously assessed its property, known as the Piedmont Behavioral Health Center (a psychiatric facility for troubled adolescents), located on approximately 46 acres on U.S. Route 15 north of Leesburg in 1995 through 2000. At the close of Petitioner’s evidence, the Board’s Motion to Strike as to the 1995 and 1996 assessments was granted. After the argument of counsel on November 14, 2000, the assessments for 1997 through 2000 were taken under advisement.

After consideration of the evidence and argument of counsel, I find that the Board did not consider but properly rejected the use of other valuation methods besides replacement cost in its assessments of the property for the four years at issue, that the Board’s assessments exceeded the fair market value, that the fair market value of the property for each year at issue is $2,700,000, and that the assessment for each year at issue is corrected to $2,700,000.

*247 Because the Board failed to properly consider and reject valuation methods other than the replacement cost method, the assessments lost their presumption of correctness. After consideration of the testimony of the expert for each party, I find the opinion of the Petitioner’s expert to be more persuasive than the opinion of the Board’s expert. Although I feel that the opinion of each expert has some shortcomings, I find less in die opinion of the Petitioner’s expert. Accordingly, the assessments at issue are found to be erroneous, and the assessments are corrected to conform to the opinion of the Petitioner’s expert.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.