Crognale, Francine v. Board of Assessors of the City of Boston (October 23, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
FRANCINE CROGNALE 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
Docket No. F344367
THE CITY OF BOSTON
Promulgated:
October 23, 2025
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 Board of Assessors of the City of Boston
(“assessors” or “appellee”) to abate a tax on real estate owned by and assessed to Paul
Revere Cooperative Inc. (“Cooperative”) for fiscal year 2021 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Francine Crognale (“appellant”) is the last remaining shareholder of the Cooperative.
Commissioner 	Metzer 	heard 	the 	appeal. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	and
Commissioners Good, Elliott, and Bernier joined her in the decision for the appellee.
These findings of fact and report are made on the motion of the Appellate Tax
Board (“Board”) pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34, and are promulgated
simultaneously with the decision.
Francine Crognale, pro se, for the appellant.
Laura Caltenco, Esq., for the appellee.
ATB 2025-382

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing of this appeal, the
Board made the following findings of fact.
I. Introduction and jurisdiction
On January 1, 2020, the Cooperative was the assessed owner of Unit 1A, a
condominium unit located at 61 Prince Street in Boston (“subject property”). The subject
property has a total living area of 830 square feet, with a kitchen, one bedroom, and one
bathroom, featuring central air conditioning and forced hot air heating. As of the relevant
valuation date, the exterior and interior conditions of the subject property were stated to
be average, and the view was indicated to be fair. The property record card for the fiscal
year at issue indicates an effective year built of 2002.
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at $132,900
and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $10.67 per $1,000, in the total amount of
$1,421.55, inclusive of the Community Preservation Act surcharge. The tax was timely
paid without incurring interest. On February 2, 2021, the appellant timely filed an
abatement application with the assessors, which the assessors denied on April 30, 2021.
The appellant timely filed this appeal with the Board on July 30, 2021.1 Based on these
facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
1 The appellant’s petition was stamped as received by the Board on August 10, 2021, but the petition was
mailed in an envelope postmarked July 30, 2021. Under G.L. c. 58A, § 7, the Board used the postmark
date as the date of filing.
ATB 2025-383

II. History of the Cooperative and the subject property
A. Creation of the Paul Revere Condominium, Inc.
On August 7, 1985, as stated in a Clerk’s Certificate, the Clerk of Paul Revere
Housing, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, certified that at a special meeting held on
June 13, 1985, the directors of Paul Revere Housing, Inc. voted to convert the property
at 61 Prince Street into a “condominium regime of ownership” and sell its entire interest
in the property.
On October 3, 1985, the Paul Revere Condominium Association, Inc. (“Paul
Revere Condominium”) was created by a Master Deed recorded with the Suffolk County
Registry of Deeds. The Master Deed itself was not entered into evidence, although the
record indicates that twenty-four condominium units were created.
B. Formation of the Cooperative
Less than one year later, on August 5, 1986, Articles of Organization for the
Cooperative were filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The
Cooperative was formed principally:
(a) 	To 	acquire 	11 	Condominium 	Units 	[ 	] 	in 	the 	Paul 	Revere
Condominium, a 24 unit multifamily residential building located at 61
Prince Street, Boston, Massachusetts [ ] for the purpose of providing
dwelling accommodations on a cooperative plan for persons and
families of low and moderate incomes; [and]
(b) 	to operate, maintain and improve, and to buy, own, sell, convey,
assign, mortgage or lease the Property and any other real estate and
any personal property necessary or convenient to the operation of
the corporation . . . .
The Articles of Organization authorize the issuance of 100 shares of common stock
without par value, and require an allocation by the Board of Directors of the Cooperative
of shares to a particular apartment unit that bears a reasonable relationship to the portion
ATB 2025-384

of the value of the Cooperative’s equity attributable to that unit. A purchaser of shares
allocated to a unit is required to execute an occupancy agreement for the specific unit as
prescribed by the by-laws of the Cooperative. Neither an example of an occupancy
agreement (and particularly the occupancy agreement for the appellant) nor the by-laws
were entered into evidence.
While the entirety of the Articles of Organization was not entered into evidence, the
portions in evidence detail the procedures for the purchase and sale of shares. Shares
can only be sold to a purchaser who is a “qualified person,” defined in the Articles of
Organization as “a person or persons approved by the corporation” and who meet “such
income guidelines as may be established from time to time by the corporation,” among
other requisites.
The Articles of Organization specify that whenever the Cooperative elects to
purchase shares from a shareholder, or a shareholder chooses to sell their shares to a
qualified person, “the purchase and sale of such stock shall be transacted in consideration
of an amount not to exceed the ‘transfer value’ of the stock.”2 The transfer value paid to
the shareholder cannot exceed the sum of the following:
(1) 	the purchase price paid by the selling shareholder in consideration
of the acquisition of the shares owned by that shareholder;
(2) 	the amount paid by the shareholder allocable to principal payments
on the Cooperative’s blanket mortgage;
(3) 	up to an amount of $2,500 for any improvements to the unit that the
shareholder was entitled to occupy; and
(4) 	an annual adjustment amount based on the increase in a designated
Consumer Price Index.
2 General Laws c. 157B, § 4, concerning cooperative corporations, defines “transfer value” as “the value
which may be paid or received upon the sale or transfer of the stock of a cooperative corporation.”
ATB 2025-385

The Articles of Organization also specify that a shareholder can surrender their
shares upon giving the Cooperative notice of at least ninety days before the first day of
the month in which the surrender is to become effective. If the Cooperative accepts the
surrender, the Cooperative will then “proceed with reasonable diligence to sell the stock
to a purchaser and at a price reasonably acceptable to the” Cooperative. From such a
sale, the surrendering shareholder is entitled to the lesser of the net proceeds of the sale
or the transfer value of the shares surrendered.
Pursuant to the Articles of Organization, the Cooperative also has a right of first
refusal with respect to any sale of shares.
C. The Cooperative’s units in the Paul Revere Condominium
On August 25, 1986, by Unit Deed with quitclaim covenants, Paul Revere Housing,
Inc., for consideration of $1,269,875, granted to the Cooperative the following eleven units
located in the Paul Revere Condominium: Units 1A (the subject property), 2A, 2C, 2E, 2F,
3A, 3C, 3E, 3F, 4C, and 4F (“original Cooperative units”).
Through a transaction, the exact details and dates of which are not in evidence,
the appellant paid $5,188 for shares of the Cooperative that entitled her to occupy the
subject property.
Through various transactions, the exact details, amounts, and dates of which are
not in evidence, ten of the eleven shareholders of the Cooperative (“former Cooperative
shareholders”) became the owners of the following units allocated to their respective
shares – Units 2A, 2C, 2E, 2F, 3A, 3C, 3E, 3F, 4C, and 4F (“former Cooperative units”).
Thus, the Cooperative no longer owned these ten units. The record includes the following
details relating to five of the former Cooperative units:
ATB 2025-386

Unit 	Date of Sale 	Sale Price
2A 	April 3, 2001 	$51,307
2C 	April 3, 2001 	$50,214
3A 	July 6, 2001 	$62,120
3E 	April 3, 2001 	$61,525
4C 	April 3, 2001 	$50,214
The appellant chose not to purchase the subject property and she is thus the sole
remaining shareholder of the Cooperative.
D. Amendment to Condominium Documents
On October 15, 2000, by an Amendment to Master Deed for the Paul Revere
Condominium, a new Article X was inserted, adding restrictions applicable to “[e]ach Unit
which was formerly owned by the Paul Revere Cooperative Corporation, Inc.” Among the
restrictions is the provision that upon the initial transfer or conveyance of a unit “formerly
owned by the Paul Revere Cooperative Corporation, Inc.,” the owner of the unit shall
“receive from the proceeds of such transfer or conveyance not more than the aggregate
of:
(1) 	such amount as the Unit Owner would have been entitled to receive
upon the transfer of the share which they previously held in the
Cooperative as provided for in the Cooperative Documents;
(2) 	$65,000; and
(3) 	$2,500 for each full calendar year during which they continue to own
the 	Unit 	after 	the 	conveyance 	to 	such 	Unit 	Owner 	from 	the
Cooperative up to a total of $25,000.”
The amendment further indicates that “[t]he remaining balance of any proceeds of such
initial transfer or conveyance shall be paid to the Paul Revere Charitable Trust to . . . be
set up for this purpose to be held and distributed pursuant to the provisions of the Trust.”
Pursuant to the amendment, the Trust and the Planning Office for Urban Affairs of the
Archdiocese of Boston are “granted a right of first refusal in respect of such initial
ATB 2025-387

conveyance of such Units and which right of first refusal shall expire following such initial
conveyance of the Unit . . . .”
The Amendment describes each unit formerly owned by the Cooperative as
“specifically, Units 1A, 2A, 2C, 2E, 2F, 3A, 3C, 3E, 3F, 4C, and 4F.” Notwithstanding the
reference to Unit 1A, however, the Amendment does not affect the subject property
because its owner was not a signatory, and Unit 1A is still owned by the Cooperative.
III. The parties’ cases
This appeal raises the question of whether the fair cash value of the subject
property for the fiscal year at issue was limited to the appellant’s transfer value for her
Cooperative shares.
A. The appellant’s case
The appellant maintained that the assessed value of the subject property should
be limited to her transfer value – the value that she could receive for her shares of the
Cooperative - an amount she contended to be $13,853.
Apart from her own testimony, the appellant relied on a letter dated January 29,
2024, to her from William H. Grogan, President of the Planning Office for Urban Affairs of
the Archdiocese of Boston (“Grogan letter”), and a series of letters that she sent to
Attorney Caltenco. Mr. Grogan’s relevance concerning Cooperative matters was not clear,
but as the Grogan letter was sent to the appellant in response to a letter that was sent by
her, the Board concluded that he held some degree of authority in matters concerning the
Cooperative.
In the Grogan letter, Mr. Grogan noted that the appellant was the sole remaining
shareholder 	of 	the 	Cooperative. 	He 	estimated 	that, 	pursuant 	to 	the 	Articles 	of
ATB 2025-388

Organization, she would be entitled to receive approximately $13,853 “upon a sale of the
Unit.” He incorrectly stated in the letter that: “Pursuant to that certain Amendment to
Master Deed of the Condominium, dated October 15, 2000, the Planning Office for Urban
Affairs, Inc. holds a right of first refusal on the initial sale of the Unit.” As explained
previously, the subject property is not controlled by the Amendment to Master Deed
(though the Articles of Organization give the Cooperative a right of first refusal on the sale
of Cooperative shares).
Through documentary evidence and testimony, the appellant argued that former
Cooperative units are being taxed at the amount of money that the former Cooperative
shareholders can receive at resale (“resale value”) of their units, not market value, and
that the same should apply with respect to her unit. She referred to former Cooperative
Units 2A, 2C, 3A, 3E, and 4C, and their respective assessed values of $161,500,
$161,500, $173,500, $171,300, and $161,500, versus Unit 4E (a unit at the Paul Revere
Condominium that was never owned by the Cooperative) and its assessed value of
$765,800. Upon questioning, the appellant admitted that these were assessed values for
fiscal year 2024 and not the fiscal year at issue, and that she obtained the values from
the city’s website. She did not provide evidence to establish that the assessed values for
these 	former 	Cooperative 	units 	corresponded 	to 	the 	resale 	value 	that 	a 	former
Cooperative shareholder could recoup on a sale according to the formula in the
Amendment to Master Deed.
Though she relied on the former Cooperative units in making her argument, the
appellant also sought to distinguish herself from those units, claiming her situation and
the situation of the former Cooperative shareholders were “apples and oranges” and that
ATB 2025-389

she was at “the lowest tier” at what she could get upon a sale because they have unit
deeds and she does not.
The appellant testified that if she wanted to sell her Cooperative shares, Mr.
Grogan “would handle everything.” She posited that “they would sell it and they would get
[whatever the market is] and then I would get this piece of distribution.” She indicated that
“we’re not supposed to get more than what we put into it so that was the basis of how
they would keep it that way” and “I cannot sell it to anybody I have to go to Mr. Grogan
and say I’m ready to sell my unit and they would take over from there, they would do the
paperwork.”
B. The assessors’ case
The assessors, through the testimony of their witness, Assessor Tommy Di Stasi,
and documentary evidence, explained that the former Cooperative units are not assessed
at their resale value as alleged by the appellant. The former Cooperative units and the
subject property are assessed at what the assessors refer to as an affordable rate. The
assessors have followed this practice with respect to both the subject property and the
former Cooperative units as far back as the early 2000s, at the time when the former
Cooperative shareholders purchased their units. To calculate this affordable rate, the
assessors started with the purchase prices of the former Cooperative units and have
consistently applied a 5 percent increase in assessed values per fiscal year. The purchase
prices of the former Cooperative units served as sales comparables used for purposes of
determining a base value for the subject property, to which the assessors consistently
ATB 2025-390

have applied a 5 percent increase in assessed value per fiscal year.3 In applying this
same affordable rate to all the original Cooperative units, the assessors determined that
these units are all condominium units with intended use as affordable housing, whether
owned by the Cooperative or former Cooperative shareholders.
To 	corroborate 	this 	practice 	of 	applying 	an 	affordable 	rate, 	the 	assessors
introduced property record cards into evidence for the subject property, five former
Cooperative units, and a condominium unit in the Paul Revere Condominium that was
never part of the Cooperative. For the fiscal year at issue, the property record card for the
subject property shows a valuation via multiple-regression analysis4 of $544,600. An
override was applied by the assessors to adjust this value to $132,900, which is a rounded
5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2020 assessed value of $126,600. Similarly for the
fiscal year at issue, the property record card for former Cooperative Unit 2A shows a
valuation via multiple-regression analysis of $762,500. An override was applied by the
assessors to adjust this value to $139,500, which is a rounded 5 percent increase over
the fiscal year 2020 assessed value of $132,900. Conversely, the fiscal year at issue’s
property record card for Unit 4E, which was never a part of the Cooperative, shows a
valuation via multiple-regression analysis (and assessed value) of $728,600 with no
override.
3 Based on evidence and using the assessors’ 5 percent-increase methodology, the base value for the
subject property would have been approximately $48,500 in 2001. In comparison, the purchase prices in
2001 for former Cooperative units 2A, 2C, 3A, 3E, and 4C, ranged from $50,214 to $62,120.
4 Multiple-regression analysis is “[a] technique for analyzing the relationship between one dependent
(outcome) variable and more than one independent (explanatory or predictor) variable.” T HE D ICTIONARY OF
R EAL ESTATE APPRAISAL at 297 (7th Edition). “Regression models have been used for mass appraisal by
property tax assessors for many years, especially in highly developed residential markets, because
regression modeling is more resource-efficient than performing a traditional appraisal for each property in
a large assessment district with an active real estate market.” T HE APPRAISAL OF R EAL ESTATE at 268 (15th
Edition).
ATB 2025-391

The assessors argued that fair cash value, the resale value per the Amendment to
Master Deed, and the appellant’s transfer value are not synonymous concepts. By way
of example, they cited a letter dated April 19, 2022, in which the attorney representing the
Planning Office for Urban Affairs of the Archdiocese of Boston and the Trustees of the
Paul Revere Charitable Trust, contacted the attorneys representing the estate of Maria
Ginnetti. Ms. Ginnetti was a former Cooperative shareholder and the owner of Unit 2E –
a former Cooperative unit. This unit was conveyed to Ms. Ginnetti subject to the
Amendment to Master Deed. The letter stated that the estate would be able to receive a
resale value of only $151,237.72 upon the sale of the unit, pursuant to the formula set
forth in the Amendment to Master Deed. The letter demanded that the estate immediately
list the unit for sale on the open market or a lawsuit would be filed against the estate by
the Archdiocese and the Trust, seeking declaratory judgment and specific performance.
Unit 2E sold for $865,000 on March 20, 2023, more than five times the resale value that
the estate was entitled to receive per the Amendment to Master Deed.
IV. The Board’s findings
Based on the above and the evidence of record, and as discussed further in the
Opinion below, the Board found that the appellant failed to establish that the fair cash
value of the subject property was less than the assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.
The assessors, conversely, established that the subject property was assessed even
lower than what the assessors considered a fair cash value for the subject property for
the fiscal year at issue.
Critically, the appellant focused her entire case on her transfer value. The
appellant’s contention that the subject property should be assessed at $13,853 for the
ATB 2025-392

fiscal year at issue considered only the amount the appellant would then have been able
to receive per the Articles of Organization upon a disposition of her shares of the
Cooperative. The Cooperative itself purchased the eleven original Cooperative units in
1986 for $1,269,875 - an average of $115,443 per unit - more than thirty years before the
relevant date of assessment for the fiscal year at issue.
The Cooperative - not the appellant - owns the subject property. The Cooperative
has the right to sell the subject property per the Articles of Organization, and it exercised
that right with the former Cooperative units. The Articles of Organization do not limit the
Cooperative to a sale price for the subject property, or even a sale price for shares of the
Cooperative. While the appellant may be limited in how much she can recoup upon a
disposition of her shares, the Articles of Organization provide for no such limitation
applicable to the Cooperative’s disposition of the subject property itself or any other
restrictions, governmental or private.
Further, the assessors established that the subject property has consistently been
assessed well below a value at which the assessors normally would assess such a
property. Since the early 2000s, the assessors have used the purchase prices of the
former Cooperative units as a baseline for assessments of those units and the subject
property, with 5 percent increases in assessed values per year. Property records cards
with respect to the fiscal year at issue demonstrate the much higher multiple-regression
analysis values that the assessors overrode for the former Cooperative units and the
subject property. Other units that were never part of the Cooperative, including Unit 4E,
have not been assessed at this discounted affordable rate.
ATB 2025-393

The 	appellant 	provided 	no 	evidence 	to 	challenge 	the 	assessors’ 	valuation
methodology, merely alleging an “apples and oranges” theory and non-existent “tiers”
between the subject property and the former Cooperative units.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee for the fiscal year at
issue.
OPINION
The assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value. G.L. c. 59,
§ 38. Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer
will agree if both are fully informed and under no compulsion. Boston Gas Co. v.
Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
A taxpayer has the burden of proving that the property at issue has a lower value
than that assessed. “The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to make out its right as [a]
matter of law to [an] abatement of the tax.” Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington,
365 	Mass. 	243, 	245 	(1974) 	(quoting 	Judson 	Freight 	Forwarding 	Co. 	v.
Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55 (1922)). “[T]he board is entitled to ‘presume that the
valuation made by the assessors [is] valid unless the taxpayer[] sustain[s] the burden of
proving the contrary.’” General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598
(1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
In appeals before the Board, a taxpayer “may present persuasive evidence of
overvaluation either by exposing flaws or errors in the assessors’ method of valuation, or
by introducing affirmative evidence of value which undermines the assessors’ valuation.”
General Electric Co., 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston,
ATB 2025-394

389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)). In the present appeal, the appellant provided no evidence
of flaws or errors in the assessors’ method of valuation and failed to present affirmative
evidence of overvaluation, focusing only on the transfer value that she could receive for
her Cooperative shares. See Fox v. Assessors of Longmeadow, Mass. ATB Findings
of Fact and Reports 2021-479, 483 (finding that “the lack of any quantifiable impact on
the subject property’s fair cash value was critically lacking”). Moreover, the Board found
no reason to conclude that the assessors’ valuation methodology applied since the early
2000s with respect to the subject property, as well as the similarly situated former
Cooperative units, resulted in overvaluation of the subject property.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision in favor of the appellee.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ______________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: _______________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-395