John S. Angelini v. Board of Assessors of the City of Leominster (March 22, 2002)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD

JOHN S. ANGELINI           v.      BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
 		THE CITY OF LEOMINSTER

Docket No. F259422			 	Promulgated: 			
							March 22, 2002

This is an appeal under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, from the refusal of the appellee to abate taxes on certain real estate in the City of Leominster owned by and assessed to the appellant under G.L. c. 59, § 38, for fiscal year 2001.
Commissioner Rose 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 S. Angelini, pro se, for the appellant.
Walter Poirier, Assessor, for the appellee.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	This appeal raises the issue of whether the Board of Assessors of the City of Leominster ("Assessors") properly valued the subject property.  Based on testimony and exhibits offered at the hearing, the presiding hearing officer made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2000, John S. Angelini ("the appellant") was the assessed owner of a parcel of real estate, improved with a dwelling, located at 181 Ridgewood Drive in Leominster.  The Assessors valued the property at $125,300 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $15.31 per thousand, in the amount of $1,918.34.  According to the property record card, the total assessed value included a land value of $60,300 and a building value of $63,900.  The appellant timely paid his taxes without incurring interest.   On January 9, 2001, he timely filed an application for abatement seeking an $8,300 reduction in the valuation of the subject property, claiming that the fair cash value of the property was only $117,000.

On April 4, 2001, the Assessors denied the appellant's application.  On April 20, 2001, the appellant timely filed his appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  On this basis, the hearing officer found that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal. 
The subject property consists of a 23,358 square-foot parcel of land improved with a single-family ranch-style home, which contains 1,040 square feet of living space.  The home has six rooms, including three bedrooms and one bathroom, hardwood floors, an unfinished basement, a wood deck, and an enclosed, finished porch.  The appellant maintained that the subject property was overvalued.  To support his assertion, the appellant presented testimony about and offered photographs of his house and other ranch-style houses on Ridgewood Drive.  He also submitted photographs of ranch-style houses located on other streets in Leominster.  The appellant listed the assessed values and square-foot living spaces for all of these properties on a document that he submitted for the hearing officer's consideration.  He contended that the subject property was over-assessed compared to the assessments of all of the other ranch-style homes.  
The appellant also offered data of property sales as further evidence of overvaluation.  The appellant testified that on August 23, 1999, a little more than four months before the requisite assessment date, he had purchased his property for $120,000, and on that same day, 177 Ridgewood Drive sold for $127,500.  By way of comparison, 177 Ridgewood Drive contains the same square footage of living space as the subject property and also has a 308 square-foot garage, which the subject lacks.  However, the subject property includes an equal-sized, enclosed, finished porch, while 177 Ridgewood Drive lacks a deck like the subject's and included a more modest 121 square-foot patio.
The appellant then offered as further evidence of overvaluation the sale in fiscal year 2001 of 172 Ridgewood Drive.  According to the appellant, this property was valued by the Assessors at $121,300 for fiscal year 2001, and it sold for $122,000 on August 31, 2000.  The hearing officer found that this parcel is 24,461 square feet, and it is improved with a 1,040 square-foot house, which was built in 1965. 
 The house contains five rooms including three bedrooms and one bathroom.  By way of comparison, the appellant's parcel is 23,358 square feet, and is also improved with a 1,040 square-foot ranch house, which was, however, built nine years later in 1974.  The subject home contains six rooms including, as in the 172 Ridgewood Drive home, three bedrooms and one bathroom.  Unlike the 172 Ridgewood Drive property, the subject also includes a metal shed and an above ground-swimming pool.  While 172 Ridgewood Drive has a finished garage, the subject property has a 413 square-foot wood deck, an enclosed 308 square-foot finished porch, and an unfinished basement area that is larger than 172 Ridgewood Drive's basement by almost 350 square feet.  
In defense of their assessment, the Assessors introduced property record cards for the subject property and the 172 and 284 Ridgewood Drive properties relied upon by the appellant for his claim of overvaluation.  The Assessors also introduced the property record cards for two additional properties, 169 and 176 Ridgewood Drive, which were valued at $125,400 and $143,200, respectively.  By comparing and contrasting the features of these four properties with those of the subject, the Assessors contended that the appellant did not account for variances between the comparable properties and the subject property.  
For example, while the property at 169 Ridgewood Drive, valued at $125,400, contains a larger 1,376 square-foot living area, and half of its 1,040 square-foot basement is finished, it lacks many of the subject's amenities, including an enclosed, finished porch and a deck.  Likewise, the property at 176 Ridgewood Drive, valued at $143,200, lacks the subject's enclosed, finished porch.  However, this property does contain a larger 1,340 square-foot living area, as well as an additional bathroom.  Further, the property at 284 Ridgewood, valued at $123,900, has a 336 square-foot screened-in, finished porch, as compared with the subject property's 308 square-foot porch, and it also contains 1,092 square feet of living space.  
Finally, the Assessors argued that the properties at 172 and 177 Ridgewood Drive, cited by the appellant in his comparable sales argument, lacked features contained in the subject property.  For example, the subject property includes an enclosed, finished porch that is the same gross area as the garage at 177 Ridgewood Drive, but the enclosed porch's unit cost per square foot exceeds that of the garage.  Moreover, 177 Ridgewood Drive lacks a deck and includes only a modest 121 square-foot patio.  As for 172 Ridgewood Drive, this property lacks the subject's enclosed, finished porch, and its basement area is about two-thirds the size of the subject area's basement area.  
Based on the evidence submitted regarding comparable sales, the hearing officer found that the subject property's assessed value of $125,300 did not exceed its fair cash value for fiscal year 2001.  After considering all the testimony and exhibits, the hearing officer found that the appellant did not meet his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2001.  First, the hearing officer found that the properties on streets other than Ridgewood Drive were not comparable to the subject property.  Second, the hearing officer found that most of the appellant's evidence, which consisted simply of photographs of houses and a list indicating the respective living spaces and assessed values for these properties, failed to draw a sufficiently detailed comparison between these properties and the subject property.  This evidence did not indicate any other similarities and/or differences between the appellant's property and these purportedly comparable properties.  
Finally, the appellant failed to prove that the purportedly comparable sales supported his claim that his property was over-assessed.  The Board found that the sale prices for the three properties on Ridgewood Drive, including the subject property, supported the assessed value, and indicated fair market values well in excess of the appellant's fair market value opinion of $117,000.  Accordingly, the Board found that the sale prices for the three properties served as the best evidence of the subject property's fair market value.  Furthermore, the appellant did not properly impute a value to the subject property from the values of his comparables, because he failed to make adjustments to reflect the differences between the comparables and the subject property.  On this basis, the hearing officer decided this appeal for the Assessors and issued a single-member decision for the appellee on September 21, 2001.

OPINION
The assessors have a statutory and constitutional obligation to assess all real property at its full and fair cash value.  Part II, c. 1, § 1, art. 4 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth; art. 10 of the Declaration of Rights; G.L. c. 59, §§ 38, 52.  See also Coomey v. Assessors of Sandwich, 367 Mass. 836, 837 (1975).  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer will agree if both of them are fully informed and under no compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).  
The assessment is presumed valid unless the taxpayer sustains the burden of proving otherwise.  Schlaiker v. Board of Assessors of Great Barrington, 356 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).  Accordingly, the burden of proof is upon the appellant to make out his right as a matter of law to an abatement of the tax.  Id.  The appellant must show that the assessed valuation of his property was improper.  See Foxboro Associates v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 691 (1982). 
In appeals before the Board, the appellant "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. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 600 (1984) (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).  Generally, real estate valuation experts, the 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 Development Authority, 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978).  "[S]ales of property usually furnish strong evidence of market value, provided they are arm's-length transactions and thus fairly represent what a buyer has been willing to pay for the property to a willing seller."  Foxboro Associates, 385 Mass. at 682.  Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within a reasonable time of the assessment date contain credible data and information for determining the value of the property at issue.  See McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1920).
In the present appeal, the hearing officer found that the appellant did not "expose flaws or errors in the assessors' method of valuation."  The appellant asserted that his property was overvalued in comparison to the valuations of neighboring parcels on Ridgewood Drive, as well as parcels on various other streets.  However, upon consideration of the evidence presented, the hearing officer found and ruled that the appellant did not demonstrate that the overall assessment overstated the fair cash value of the subject property.  
The hearing officer first found and ruled that the properties on streets other than Ridgewood Drive were not comparable to the subject property.  The hearing officer then found and ruled that the appellant's photographs and list of respective living spaces and assessed values failed to draw a sufficient comparison between those properties and the subject property, because this evidence failed to indicate any other similarities and/or differences which would support the appellant's claim of over-assessment.  Accordingly, the hearing officer found and ruled that the information submitted by the appellant was insufficient to show that the overall assessment of the subject property was excessive in comparison.  
Finally, the hearing officer found and ruled that the appellant's comparable sales data failed to prove an over-assessment of the subject property.  The hearing officer found and ruled that the assessed value of the subject property in relation to the sale prices of three properties, including the subject property, during fiscal year 2001 and four months prior to the assessment date for fiscal year 2001, was reasonable under the circumstances.  In comparing these sale prices -- $120,000, $122,000 and $127,500 - with the $117,000 fair market value offered by the appellant, the hearing officer found that the sale prices comprised the best evidence of the subject property's  fair market value.  Moreover, the appellant failed to make adjustments between the comparable sale properties and the subject property and, therefore, did not properly impute a value to the subject property from the values of his comparables.  Accordingly, the hearing officer found and ruled that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the purportedly comparable sales supported his contention of over-assessment.
On this basis, the hearing officer ruled that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2001.  Accordingly, the hearing officer decided this appeal for the appellee.


					 	APPELLATE TAX BOARD	
							
By:____________________________
					    James D. Rose, Member



A true copy:



Attest: _____________________
	    Clerk of the Board

   The main residence was valued at $63,900.  In addition, a small metal shed was valued at $200, and an above-ground swimming pool was valued at $900 for a combined value of $1,100 for these structures.
   Pursuant to G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, timely payment of the tax is not a prerequisite to the Board's jurisdiction when the tax for the fiscal year at issue is $3,000 or less.
   The appellant also submitted a photograph labeled "16 Parkdale," but he did not submit any additional evidence, nor did he testify as to its size or assessed value.
   The document submitted by the appellant listed the sale price as $128,000.  However, the property record card for this property, along with the attached quitclaim deed, indicated that the sale price was $127,500.
   The Assessors also submitted into evidence a city map for the lots on Ridgewood Drive and the surrounding vicinity.

ATB 2002-149