John J. Giurleo v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Raynham (July 7, 2009)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


JOHN J. GIURLEO             v.	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
		THE TOWN OF RAYNHAM

Docket No. F298776		Promulgated:
        						July 7, 2009


	This is an appeal filed under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, from the refusal of the appellee, Board of Assessors of the Town of Raynham ("assessors"), to abate taxes on certain real estate in the Town of Raynham, owned by and assessed to John J. Giurleo ("appellant") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2008.
	Commissioner Rose ("Presiding Commissioner") heard this appeal and issued a single-member decision for the appellee in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1 and 831 CMR 1.20.
  These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	John J. Giurleo, pro se, for the appellant.
	Michael Lalli, assessor, and William Lewis, assessor,
for the appellee.  
	

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	On the basis of the testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.
	On January 1, 2007, the appellant was the assessed owner of a 40,050 square-foot parcel of real estate located at 200 Wilbur Street, in Raynham.  The parcel is improved with a single-family, ranch-style home, which contains approximately 1,040 square feet of living area ("subject property").  The dwelling has a total of five rooms, including three bedrooms.  There is also a twelve square-foot front porch, a twenty-four square-foot side porch, and a shed.
	For fiscal year 2008, the assessors valued the property at $290,000 and assessed the appellant a tax thereon, plus a district tax, in the total amount of $3,261.85.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellant paid the tax due without incurring interest.  On April 17, 2008, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellant timely filed an abatement application with the assessors, which they denied on July 8, 2008.  On September 15, 2008, the appellant timely filed a petition with the County Commissioners. Pursuant to G.L. c. 59, § 64, the assessors timely transferred the case to the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  On October 23, 2008, the appellant seasonably filed his appeal with the Board.  On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
	At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant argued that the subject property was overvalued.  The appellant maintained that the front porch, side porch, basement fireplace, shed, bulk head, and land were all individually overvalued.  The appellant specifically objected to the assessed value of the twelve square-foot front porch.  The appellant claimed that the fair cash value of the subject property as of the January 1, 2007 assessment date was $256,700.  
	In support of his argument, appellant offered into evidence self-prepared statements regarding the condition of the subject property and photographs of the subject property.  Appellant offered no comparable sales or assessment data or any other evidence beyond his own assertions that the property was overvalued.
	In support of their assessment, the assessors relied on the testimony of two assessors, Michael Lalli and William Lewis.  The assessors offered into evidence the fiscal year 2008 property record card for the subject property.  In response to the appellant's claim that the front porch was overvalued, the assessors explained that "all enclosed porches of 25 square feet and under are valued at $1,500 less any physical depreciation factor.  Appellant's 12 square-foot porch with a 20% depreciation factor adds $1,200 to the value of the property."  Appellant offered no credible evidence to suggest that the assessor's valuation of the porch or subject property was improper.
	On the basis of the evidence presented, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant did not provide credible evidence to support his claim that the subject property was overvalued.  The appellant based his claim on the present condition of the subject property, but did not present evidence, such as the sales prices or assessed values of comparable properties, property record cards or other affirmative evidence, to prove that the assessors overvalued the subject property.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant did not meet his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2008.

OPINION
	"All property, real and personal, situated within the  commonwealth . . . shall be subject to taxation."  G.L. c. 59, § 2.   Assessors have a statutory obligation to assess real estate at its fair cash value as of the first day of January of the year preceding the fiscal year at issue.  G.L. c. 59 §§ 11 and 38.  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer in a free and open market will agree if both of them are fully informed and neither is under compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956). 
The taxpayer has the burden of proving that the subject property has a lower value than that assessed.  Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).  The assessment is presumed to be valid unless the taxpayer is able to sustain his or her burden of proving otherwise.  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. at 591, 598 (1984) (citing Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).  The taxpayer may sustain this burden by introducing evidence of fair cash value, or by proving that the assessors erred in their method of evaluation.  General Electric, 393 Mass. at 600.  
In the present appeal, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant did neither.  Generally, real estate valuation experts, Massachusetts courts, and this Board rely upon three approaches to determine the fair cash value of property: income capitalization; sales comparison; and cost reproduction.  Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Authority, 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978).  Here, the appellant asserted that the front porch, side porch, basement fireplace, shed, bulk head, and land of the subject property were all individually overvalued.  Appellant specifically focused on the front porch, claiming that the assessors failed to consider its condition and small size.  However, the appellant offered no evidence to support his claims beyond his own opinions regarding the value of the subject property and the assessors offered an adequate explanation of their valuation of the porch and the subject property as a whole.  
The Board has rejected similar unsubstantiated claims by taxpayers that their properties were overvalued.  See Krasnigor, et al v. Assessors of Wayland, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports, 2009-254, 259-60 (appellants did not meet burden of proof where they relied solely on unsupported testimony and a self-prepared valuation
statement to support their overvaluation claim); O'Connell v. Assessors of Danvers, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2009-131, 136 (appellant failed to demonstrate how the subject property being a factory-built modular home negatively impacted the property's fair cash value).  
In contrast, the taxpayer in Kelly v. Assessors of Bedford, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-941, argued that the assessors failed to consider the adverse effects of water problems and an active drainage ditch running along the subject property. Id. at 943.  The taxpayer submitted into evidence property record cards for neighboring properties that demonstrated that the subject property was valued at essentially the same amount as otherwise comparable properties that did not have drainage ditches or water problems.  Id. at 943-44.  Accordingly, the Board ruled there that the taxpayer met his burden of proving overvaluation.  Id. at 944.
Based on the record before him, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant presented no credible, persuasive evidence as to the value of the subject property.  The appellant's case consisted solely of his own opinion of the value of the property unsupported by market or comparable-assessment data.  Thus, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant did not meet his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2008.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued a single-member decision for the appellee.  
 APPELLATE TAX BOARD

					By:		_____		_______
					    James D. Rose, Commissioner

	ATB 2009-644