Kenneth Howatt and Kathy Light v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Natick (November 7, 2008)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


KENNETH HOWATT AND           v.       BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
KATHY LIGHT                           THE TOWN OF NATICK

Docket Nos. F284840 & F292635         Promulgated:
 							   November 7, 2008


	These are appeals 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 to abate taxes on real estate located in the Town of Natick owned by and assessed to the appellants under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 
	Commissioner Mulhern heard the appeals.  Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Egan, and Rose joined him in the decisions for the appellants.  Upon further review, the Board issued a Revised Decision for the appellants in Docket No. F284840, which is promulgated simultaneously with these findings.  
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to requests by the appellants and appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	Stephen M. Politi, Esq. for the appellants.

	John Flynn, Esq. for the appellee.  

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT

	On the basis of the testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of these appeals, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact. 
On January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006, Kenneth Howatt and Kathy Light ("appellants") were the assessed owners of a 38,202 square-foot parcel of land located at 36 Rathbun Road in the Town of Natick ("subject property").  The parcel is improved with a 5,792 square-foot single-family, Colonial/Cape-style dwelling.  The dwelling contains fourteen rooms, including five bedrooms as well as three full and two-half bathrooms, and has five fireplaces.  Other amenities include a large deck and an in-ground pool.  The subject property has a two-car attached garage as well as a two-car detached garage.  It also has an outbuilding which has an additional garage bay and storage areas.  The outbuilding is used partly as a cabana for the pool.  The subject property is located in a residential area that contains a mix of many types of single-family homes.    
The original Cape-style portion of the house contains 2,058 square feet of living area and was built in the 1940s.  A Colonial-style addition was built in 2004, which provided an additional 3,734 square feet of living area. The basement of the Colonial portion of the home is finished.  The basement of the Cape portion of the home was at one time finished, but had fallen into disrepair prior to the relevant valuation dates.  For both of the fiscal years at issue, the subject property had incomplete landscaping and an unpaved driveway.  
	For fiscal year 2006, the Board of Assessors of Natick ("assessors" or "appellee") valued the subject property at $1,303,800, and assessed a tax thereon, at a rate of $10.02 per thousand, in the total amount of $13,064.08, which the appellants timely paid.  The appellants timely filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors on January 6, 2006.  On February 17, 2006, the assessors reduced the assessed value to $1,263,700 and issued an abatement in the amount of $401.80.  On May 2, 2006, the appellants seasonably filed a Petition Under the Informal Procedure with the Board.  
	For fiscal year 2007, the assessors valued the subject property at $1,317,800, and assessed a tax thereon at the rate of $9.58 per thousand, for a total of $12,624.52, which the appellants timely paid.  The appellants timely filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors on January 30, 2007.  On April 25, 2007, the assessors denied the abatement request.  On July 19, 2007, the appellants seasonably filed a Petition Under the Formal Procedure with the Board.  Based on the above facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide these appeals.  
	The appellants argued that the subject property was overvalued by the assessors for both of the fiscal years at issue.  The appellants presented their case through the testimony of Mr. Ronald Handverger, a certified general real estate appraiser.  Based on Mr. Handverger's certification, education and experience, the Board qualified him as an expert in the field of real estate valuation.  The appellants also entered into evidence Mr. Handverger's appraisal reports for the subject property for both of the fiscal years at issue as well as the certified copies of the deeds for all of the comparable properties discussed in Mr. Handverger's appraisal reports.
Mr. Handverger testified that for fiscal year 2006, he conducted a sales-comparison analysis of six comparable properties.  The following table is a presentation of the sales also located in Natick upon which Mr. Handverger relied for fiscal year 2006, and all of the adjustments that he made for differences in comparison to the subject property.  
	  MR. HANDVERGER'S 2006 SALES-COMPARISON PROPERTIES
	Subject Property	6 Harvest Moon Dr. 	10 Harvest Moon Dr.	11 Moccasin Path	3 Penobscot
Rd.	6 Grace Circle	10 Grace Circle	
Sale Date		 7/13/04	 7/12/04	 12/2/04	 12/17/04	 9/7/04	 7/23/04	
Sale Price ($)		 1,100,000	 1,045,000	 1,080,000	 857,000	 985,000	 1,005,000	
Land Size (sq. ft.)	 38,202	 78,234	 79,497	 39,988	 22,869	 23,912	 20,996	
Gross Living Area 
(sq. ft.)	 5,394	 5,426	 4,081	 4,482	 3,715	 3,780	 4,218	
Adjustments ($)								
Location					-25,000			
Design		-50,000	-50,000	-50,000	-50,000	-50,000	-50,000	
Quality		-50,000			-50,000	-50,000	-50,000	
Age						-50,000	-50,000	
Condition		-50,000	-50,000	-50,000	-25,000	-25,000	-25,000	
Gross Living Area 		-640	 26,260	 18,240	 33,580	 32,280	 23,520	
Room Count		-10,000	-4,000	 4,000	 4,000	 10,000	 4,000	
Energy Efficiency		 2,000	 2,000	 2,000	 2,000	 2,000	 2,000	
Garage		 10,000	 15,000	 10,000	 15,000	 15,000	 15,000	
Sheds		 1,000	 1,000	 1,000	 1,000	 1,000	 1,000	
Pool		 5,000	 5,000	 5,000	 5,000	 5,000	 5,000	
Fireplaces		 3,000	 4,000 	 4,000	 4,000	 4,000	 4,000	
Porch/Deck		 3,500	 2,500	 1,000	 2,500	 4,000	 4,000	
Finished Basement		 8,000	 8,000		 3,000	 8,000	 8,000	
Net Adjustment		-128,140	-40,240	-54,760	-79,920	-93,720	-108,480	
Adjusted Sales Price ($)		 971,860	 1,004,760	 1,025,240	 777,080	 891,280	 896,520	

Included in his sales-comparison analysis were sales of properties located in the Grace Circle development in Natick, which is situated approximately three miles from the subject property.  Most of the sales presented in Mr. Handverger's analysis, including those located on Grace Circle, were newer dwellings located in subdivisions and had less gross living area than the subject property.  

Mr. Handverger testified that the subject property had certain superadequacies, including its large size and the retention of the older portion of the home, which resulted in an unusual layout.  In addition, Mr. Handverger stated that the subject property's five fireplaces and its five garage spaces would not be desirable in the market.  Mr. Handverger accounted for the larger size of the subject property by adding $20 per square foot to the adjusted sales price of those comparison properties with smaller gross living areas than the subject property.  He testified that the market adjustments for differences in gross living area ranged from $15 to $75 per square foot.  Mr. Handverger also estimated that the subject property's lack of landscaping and paving warranted a negative adjustment of $50,000 to $125,000.  
Mr. Handverger testified that his sales-comparison analysis yielded an adjusted range of values of $777,080 to $1,025,240. Mr. Handverger also conducted an analysis using the cost approach, but ultimately relied on his sales-comparison analysis in forming his opinion of value of the subject property.  Based on his sales-comparison analysis, Mr. Handverger's final opinion of value of the subject property for fiscal year 2006 was $900,000.  
For fiscal year 2007, Mr. Handverger conducted a sales-comparison analysis which included six Natick properties.  The following table is a presentation of the sales upon which Mr. Handverger relied for fiscal year 2007 and all of the adjustments that he made in comparison to the subject property.   
   MR. HANDVERGER'S 2007 SALES-COMPARISON PROPERTIES
	Subject Property	29 Algonquin Dr.	104 Bacon St.	30 Bradford Rd.	2 Edson Rd.	3 Marie Path	78 Winter St.	
Sale Date		 6/6/05	 6/30/05	 11/29/05	 6/7/05	 12/16/05	 6/30/05	
Sale Price ($)		 1,120,000	 821,900	 640,000	 971,000	 875,000	 1,100,000	
Land Size (sq. ft.)	 38,202 	 25,962 	 21,734 	 19,950	 40,903	 18,492	 31,758	
Gross Living Area 
(sq. ft.)	 5,394 	 3,986 	 3,425 	 4,853	 3,208	 3,344	 4,115	
Adjustments ($)								
Location			 25,000		-25,000			
Design		-50,000	-50,000		-50,000	-50,000	-50,000	
Quality		-50,000			-50,000	-50,000	-50,000	
Age			-50,000			-50,000		
Condition		-50,000			-25,000	-25,000	-25,000	
Gross Living Area 		 28,160	 39,380	 10,820	 43,720	 41,000	 25,580	
Room Count		 4,000	 10,000	 8,000	 10,000	 10,000	 2,000	
Energy Efficiency		 2,000	 2,000	 2,000	 2,000	 2,000	 2,000	
Heating/
Cooling				 4,500				
Garage		 15,000	 15,000	 20,000	 15,000	 15,000	 10,000	
Sheds		 1,000	 1,000	 1,000	 1,000	 1,000	 1,000	
Pool		 5,000	 5,000	 5,000	 5,000	 5,000	 5,000	
Fireplaces		 3,000	 4,000	 4,000	 4,000	 4,000	 3,000	
Porch/Deck		 3,500	 2,500	 1,000	 4,000	 3,500	 1,500	
Finished Basement			 8,000	 8,000	 8,000	 8,000	 8,000	
Rooms Below Grade				 20,000				
Net Adjustment		-88,340	 11,880	 84,320	-57,280	-85,500	-66,920	
Adjusted Sales Price ($)		 1,031,660	 833,780	 724,320	 913,720	 789,500	 1,033,080	

Additionally, Mr. Handverger conducted an analysis using the cost approach, but ultimately relied on his sales-comparison analysis to form his opinion of value of the subject property.  For fiscal year 2007, Mr. Handverger testified that his sales-comparison analysis yielded an adjusted range of value for the subject property of $724,320 to $1,033,080.  From this range, he determined the value of the subject property to be $900,000 for fiscal year 2007, the same value that he determined for fiscal year 2006.
 The assessors presented their case through the testimony of James Shaughnessy, a certified residential real estate appraiser.  Based on Mr. Shaughnessy's certification, education and experience, the Board qualified him as an expert in the field of residential real estate valuation.  The assessors offered into evidence Mr. Shaughnessy's appraisal reports for the subject property for both of the fiscal years at issue, as well as an extensive spreadsheet of data on the sales of single family homes in Natick from 2003 to 2005.  
Mr. Shaughnessy testified that for fiscal year 2006, he conducted a sales-comparison analysis of nine comparable properties located in Natick.  The following tables are a presentation of the sales upon which Mr. Shaughnessy relied, and all adjustments that he made for differences in comparison to the subject property.






       MR. SHAUGHNESSY'S 2006 SALES-COMPARISON PROPERTIES
		    	  Comparables One through Five
	Subject Property	78 Winter St.	78 Winter St.	4 Jennison Circle	42 Winter St.	42 Winter St.	
Sale Date		 3/25/03	 6/30/05	 6/14/05	 7/15/03	 6/28/05	
Sale Price ($)		 980,000	 1,100,000	 1,250,000	 1,375,000	 1,500,000	
Land Size (sq. ft.)	 38,202	 31,759	 31,759	 29,018	 55,875	 55,875	
Gross Living Area 
(sq. ft.)	 5,792	 4,019	 4,019	 4,934	 4,977	 4,977	
Adjustments ($)							
Site				 25,000	-25,000	-25,000	
Condition							
Quality 					-137,500	-150,000	
Time of Sale		 102,900	-33,000	-37,500	 123,800	-45,000	
Room Count				 10,000	 10,000	 10,000	
Gross Living Area		 163,100	 163,100	 25,800	 19,400	 19,400
	
Heating/
Cooling		-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	
Garage		-8,000	-8,000	-8,000	-8,000	-8,000	
Pool		 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 35,000	 35,000	
Fireplaces		 9,000	 9,000	 6,000	 12,000	 12,000	
Rooms Below Grade		 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	
Finished Basement		 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	
Functional Utility		-8,000	-110,000	-125,000	-137,500	-150,000	
Site Improvement		-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	
Net Adjustment		 214,000	 66,100	-58,700	-112,800	-306,600	
Adjusted Sales Price ($)		 1,194,000	 1,166,100	 1,191,300	 1,262,200	 1,193,400	


















	 MR. SHAUGHNESSY'S 2006 SALES-COMPARISON PROPERTIES
			Comparables Six through Nine

	Subject 
Property	77 Winter 
St., 
Natick	4 Grace 
Circle, 
Natick	6 Grace Circle, 
Natick	8 Grace 
Circle, 
Natick	
Sale Date		 1/9/04	 1/25/05	 9/7/04	 7/29/04	
Sale Price ($)		 907,000	 995,000	 985,000	 950,000	
Land Size	 38,202	 51,165	 26,781	 23,912	 22,931	
Gross Living Area	 5,792	 4,421	 3,684	 3,780	 3,580	
Adjustments ($)						
Site		-25,000	 25,000	 25,000	 25,000	
Condition		 90,700				
Quality						
Time of Sale		 49,900		 14,800	 23,800	
Room Count		-10,000	 10,000	 10,000	 30,000	
Gross Living Area		 102,800	 205,800	 205,800	 205,800	
Heating/
Cooling		-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	
Garage		-8,000	-8,000	-8,000	-8,000	
Pool		 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	
Fireplaces		 9,000	 12,000	 12,000	 12,000	
Rooms Below Grade		 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	
Finished Basement		 50,000			 50,000	
Functional Utility		-90,700				
Site Improvement		-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	
Net Adjustment		 163,700	 239,800	 254,600	 333,600	
Adjusted 
Sales Price ($)		 1,070,700	 1,234,800	 1,239,600	 1,283,600	

Included in this analysis were several properties located on Grace Circle.  The property at 4 Grace Circle sold for $995,000 on January 1, 2005 and contained twelve rooms, including four bedrooms as well as three and a half bathrooms, for a total living area of 3,684 square feet.  The property at 8 Grace Circle sold for $950,000 on July 29, 2004 and had nine rooms, including four bedrooms as well as two and a half bathrooms, for a total living area of 3,580 square feet. Like Mr. Handverger, Mr. Shaughnessy also relied on the sale of the property at 6 Grace Circle, which sold for $985,000 on September 7, 2004, and contained nine rooms, including four bedrooms as well as two and a half bathrooms, for a total living area of 3,780 square feet.
Mr. Shaughnessy also testified regarding properties located at 42 and 78 Winter Street, ("Winter Street properties") both of which were Colonial-style dwellings built within a few years of the relevant assessment date.   The dwelling at 42 Winter Street contained 4,977 square feet of living area.  It sold for $1,375,000 on July 15, 2003, and then sold again for $1,500,000 on June 28, 2005.  The dwelling at 78 Winter Street contained 4,019 square feet of living area.  It sold for $980,000 on March 25, 2003, and then sold again for $1,100,000 on June 30, 2005.  Mr. Shaughnessy testified that he considered the paired-sales data for the Winter Street properties to be evidence that Natick had an appreciating market during the relevant periods.  
Mr. Shaughnessy made adjustments for the difference in gross living areas of his sales-comparison properties as compared to the subject property by engaging in a two-step process whereby he compared the subject property's 3,734 square feet of newer construction space with the square footage of the sales-comparison properties, and then made a second adjustment based on the square footage of the older, Cape-style portion of the subject property.  On the whole, Mr. Shaughnessy made substantially larger adjustments for gross living area to his sales-comparison properties than the appellants' expert.  
Mr. Shaughnessy valued the 1,000 square feet of finished basement in the new addition of the subject property at $50 per square foot, for a total of $50,000, but determined that the basement of the older section of the dwelling added no value to the property.  After gathering estimates from two local landscaping companies, Mr. Shaughnessy made a negative adjustment of $60,000 to each of the sales-comparison properties, to account for the subject property's lack of landscaping and paving.  
Mr. Shaughnessy testified that his sales-comparison analysis yielded an adjusted range of value of $1,070,700 to $1,262,200.  Like Mr. Handverger, Mr. Shaughnessy also conducted an analysis using the cost approach, but ultimately relied on his sales-comparison analysis in valuing the subject property.  Mr. Shaughnessy's final opinion of value for the subject property for fiscal year 2006 was $1,190,000.
Mr. Shaughnessy conducted a sales-comparison analysis and a cost analysis for fiscal year 2007.  He ultimately relied on his sales-comparison analysis to form an opinion of value for the subject property.  The following tables are a presentation of the twelve sales in Natick upon which Mr. Shaughnessy relied and all of the adjustments that he made for differences in comparison to the subject property.















MR. SHAUGHNESSY'S 2007 SALES-COMPARISON PROPERTIES	
	      Comparables One through Six


 	Subject Property	78 Winter St.	78 Winter 
St.	4 Jennison Circle	42 Winter
St.	42 Winter
St.	77 Winter St.	
Sale Date		 3/25/03	 6/30/05	 6/14/05	 7/15/03	 6/28/05	 1/9/04	
Sale Price ($)		 980,000	 1,100,000	 1,250,000	 1,375,000	 1,500,000	 907,000	
Land Size (sq. ft.)	 38,202	 31,759	 31,759	 29,018	 55,875	 55,875	 51,165	
Gross Living Area 
(sq. ft.)	 5,792	 4,019	 4,019	 4,934	 4,977	 4,977	 4,421	
Adjustments ($)								
Site				 25,000	-25,000	-25,000	-25,000	
Condition							 90,700	
Quality					-137,500	-150,000		
Time of Sale		 161,700	 33,000	 37,500	 199,300	 45,000	 104,400	
Room Count				 10,000	 10,000	 10,000	-10,000	
Gross Living Area		 163,100	 163,100	 25,800	 19,400	 19,400	 102,800	
Heating/
Cooling		-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	
Garage		-8,000	-8,000	-8,000	-8,000	-8,000	-8,000	
Pool		 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 35,000	 35,000	 50,000	
Fireplaces		 9,000	 9,000	 6,000	 12,000	 12,000	 9,000	
Rooms Below Grade		 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	
Finished Basement		 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	
Functional Utility		-98,000	-110,000	-125,000	-137,500	-150,000	-90,700	
Site Improvement		-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	
Net Adjustment		 272,800	 132,100	 16,300	 37,300	 216,600	 218,200	
Adjusted Sales Price
($)		 1,252,800	 1,232,100	 1,266,300	 1,337,700	 1,283,400	 1,125,200	

















  	  MR. SHAUGHNESSY'S 2007 SALES-COMPARISON PROPERTIES
		    Comparables Seven through Twelve


	Subject 
Property	4 Grace Circle	6 Grace Circle	8 Grace Circle
	9 Grace 
Circle	26 Grove 
St.	9 Grace Circle	
Sale Date		 1/25/05	 9/7/04	 7/29/04	 11/10/05	 5/11/05	 3/15/05	
Sale Price ($)		 995,000	 985,000	 950,000	 1,130,000	 1,220,000	 1,075,000	
Land Size (sq. ft.)	 38,202	 26,781	 23,912	 22,931	 31,854	 91,350	 31,854	
Gross Living Area 
(sq. ft.)	 5,792	 3,684	 3,780	 3,580	 4,604	 4,755	 4,604	
Adjustments ($)								
Site		 25,000	 25,000	 25,000	 25,000	-50,000	 25,000	
Condition								
Quality								
Time of Sale		 54,700	 73,900	 80,800	 5,600	 42,700	 48,400	
Room Count		 10,000	 10,000	 30,000		 20,000		
Gross Living Area		 205,800	 205,800	 205,800	 75,300	 52,700	 75,300	
Heating/
Cooling		-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	-15,000	
Garage		-8,000	-8,000	-8,000	-8,000		-8,000	
Pool		 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	 50,000	
Fireplaces		 12,000	 12,000	 12,000	 12,000	 6,000	 12,000	
Rooms Below Grade		 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	 20,000	
Finished Basement				 50,000	 25,000	 50,000	 25,000	
Functional Utility						-61,000		
Site Improvement		-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	-60,000	
Net Adjustment		 294,500	 313,700	 390,600	 129,900	 55,400	 172,700	
Adjusted Sales Price
($)		 1,289,500	 1,298,700	 1,340,600	 1,259,900	 1,275,400	 1,247,700	


Mr. Shaughnessy testified that his sales-comparison analysis for fiscal year 2007 yielded an adjusted range of value of $1,125,200 to $1,340,600.  From this range, he determined a value for the subject property of $1,260,000 for fiscal year 2007.  Mr. Shaughnessy testified that the sale and subsequent resale of 9 Grace Circle was further evidence of a rising market in Natick during the relevant periods.  9 Grace Circle sold for $1,075,000 on March 15, 2005, and then sold again for $1,130,000 on November 10, 2005.  
Based on all of the evidence, and to the extent that it is a finding of fact, the Board found that the appellants met their burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for both of the fiscal years at issue.  On the basis of the testimony and evidence presented, as well as the Board's view of the exterior and interior of the subject property and the exterior of the comparable properties, the Board found that the properties at 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 Grace Circle ("Grace Circle properties") were the most comparable to the subject property.  Both party's experts agreed that the Grace Circle properties were similar in location to the subject property.  Further, these properties were sold between July 29, 2004 and November 11, 2005, or within months of the relevant valuation date for fiscal year 2006.  The Board therefore determined that these properties provided the most reliable evidence of value in determining the market value of the subject property for that fiscal year.  The Grace Circle properties sold for between $950,000 and $1,130,000, in comparison to the assessed value of $1,263,700 for the subject property for fiscal year 2006.  The Board found this evidence to be a reliable indication that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2006.  
The appellants' expert considered the subject property to be in average condition, while the appellee's expert considered it to be in above average condition.  Based on the Board's view as well as the evidence presented, including numerous photographs, the Board found that the subject property was in average condition with average finishes, such as in-laid linoleum flooring in the kitchen and bathrooms as opposed to ceramic tile or hardwood flooring.  Notably, most of the sales-comparison properties, including the Grace Circle properties, were in superior condition, consistent with newly constructed homes.  Nevertheless, the appellee's expert made no adjustments for quality or condition to the value of the Grace Circle properties.  Given that the comparable properties sold for less than the assessed value of the subject, despite being in better condition, the Board found that these sales were an indication that the subject property was overvalued for both of the fiscal years at issue.  
In their appraisal reports, the parties' experts reported different amounts of living area for the subject property.  The appellants' expert reported that the subject property had 5,394 square feet of living area, while the appellee's expert reported that it had 5,792 square feet of living area.  The Board found that the appellee's expert's diagrams and calculations were credible and consistent with other evidence and, therefore, more reliable than the appellants' expert's.  The Board therefore adopted the square footage used by the appellee's expert.  
The Board gave more weight to the appellants' expert's $20 per square foot adjustment for gross living area, rather than the appellee's expert's adjustments, because it was supported with more market data. The appellants' expert's adjustments generally resulted in modest increases to the comparable properties' sales prices, while the appellee's expert's adjustments for gross living area differences generally resulted in larger increases to the comparable properties' sales prices.  The Board found that the appellants' expert's comparatively modest adjustments more closely reflected the fact that the subject property was oversized for the marketplace.  This finding was further supported by each expert's sales set, which generally presented dwelling sizes between 3,208 and 4,977 square feet.  The subject property was much larger than the sales-comparison properties, and the Board determined that given its superadequate size, the price per square foot derived from the comparables had to reflect this phenomenon.   
As for the value of the finished basement, the appellee's expert estimated that it added $50,000 of value to the subject property, while the appellants' expert estimated that it added only $8,000.  Because the subject property already had almost 2,000 more square feet of living area above ground than the sales-comparison properties, the Board found that the value of the additional living area in the basement was diminished.  The Board therefore gave more weight to the appellants' expert's lower valuation of the finished basement.  
Further, the appellants' expert made an adjustment of $5,000 for the subject property's swimming pool, while the appellee's expert made an adjustment of $15,000.  The Board found that the twenty-year-old pool added little to the overall value of the subject property, and gave more weight to the appellants' expert's lower valuation of the pool. However, the Board found the appellee's expert's adjustment for the subject property's incomplete landscaping more credible and supported by the evidence, and therefore placed more weight on the appellee's lower adjustment of $60,000. 
Based on all of the evidence, the Board found that the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2006 was $1,030,000.       
  	Each party's expert used 78 Winter Street in Natick as a comparable property for fiscal year 2007.  That property sold for $980,000 on March 25, 2003 and again for $1,100,000 on June 30, 2005.  Similarly, 42 Winter Street in Natick sold for $1,375,000 on July 15, 2003, and then sold again for $1,500,000 on June 28, 2005.  In addition, 9 Grace Circle sold for $1,075,000 on March 15, 2005, and then sold again for $1,130,000 on November 10, 2005.  The appellee's expert suggested that these sales and subsequent resales indicated a rising market in Natick, and the Board agreed with that conclusion.  However, those sales were sales of newer, more conventional homes than the subject property.  The evidence of record did not support a finding of appreciation for a home such as the subject property, with its superadequacies and unusual layout resulting from its odd configuration of old space and new space.  Therefore, like Mr. Handverger, the Board found that the value of the subject property did not appreciate between fiscal years 2006 and 2007.  Accordingly, the Board found that the fair cash value of the subject property was also $1,030,000 for fiscal year 2007.  
Having found that the fair cash value of the subject property was $1,030,000 for fiscal year 2006, the Board issued a decision for the appellants and ordered an abatement of $2,341.67.  Having found that the fair cash value of the subject property was $1,030,000 for fiscal year 2007, the Board issued a decision for the appellants and ordered an abatement of $2,757.12.  
	 
OPINION
	Assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value as of the first day of January preceding the fiscal year at issue.  G.L. c. 59, § 38.  The fair cash value of a property is defined as the price upon which a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree if both are fully informed and under no compulsion. Boston Gas. Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).	 
The burden of proof is upon the taxpayer to make out a right to an abatement.  Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).  The assessment is considered to be valid unless the taxpayer meets its burden and proves otherwise.  Id.  A right to an abatement can be proven by either introducing evidence of fair cash value, or by proving that the assessors erred in their method of valuation.  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 600 (1984).
	In evaluating the evidence before it, the Board selected among the various elements of value and formed its own independent judgment of fair cash value.  General Electric, 393 Mass. at 605; North American Philips Lighting Corp. v. Assessors of Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 300 (1984).  The Board need not specify the exact manner in which it arrived at its valuation.  Jordan Marsh v. Assessors of Malden, 359 Mass. 106, 110 (1971).  The fair cash value of property cannot be proven with "mathematical certainty and must ultimately rest in the realm of opinion, estimate and judgment."  Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941). In considering whether, and to what extent, a property is overvalued, the Board may take its view of the premises and its view of comparable properties into account.  Westport v. Bristol County Commissioners, 246 Mass. 556, 563 (1923); Avco Manufacturing Corp. v. Assessors of Wilmington, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-142, 165-66; Arthur D. Little, Inc. v. Assessors of Cambridge, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports, 1982-363, 374; William Welsh Graham, et al. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of West Tisbury, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports, 2007-321, 327.  		
	In the present appeals, the appellants introduced substantial, credible evidence that the subject property was overvalued for both of the fiscal years at issue.  Because of the similarity in location to the subject property and the proximity of the sales dates to the relevant assessment dates, the sales prices of the Grace Circle properties provided probative evidence that the subject property was overvalued, particularly in consideration of the subject property's superadequacies.  The Grace Circle properties sold for between $950,000 and $1,130,000, considerably lower than the subject property's assessed value of $1,263,700 for fiscal year 2006.  The Board found that these sales were persuasive evidence of the overvaluation of the subject property, especially considering that the comparable properties were indisputably newer and in better condition than the subject property.  
	The Board selected from the various elements of value presented by the parties and formed its own opinion of value for each fiscal year.  Specifically, the Board placed greater weight on the appellee's expert's adjustments for landscaping and paving, and also utilized the appellee's expert's calculations for the square footage of the subject property because they were more credible and better supported by the evidence of record.  Conversely, the Board placed greater weight on the appellants' expert's adjustments for the difference in size between the subject property and the sales-comparison properties, and also placed greater weight on the appellants' expert's valuation of the subject property's swimming pool and finished basement.  
	Additionally, despite evidence of a rising market in Natick during the relevant assessment periods, the Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of an appreciating market for a home such as the subject property, with its odd configuration of 2,000 square feet of old construction and over 3,700 square feet of new construction, which resulted in an unusual layout as well as many superadequacies. Therefore, the Board concluded on this record that no appreciation occurred between fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for the subject property.  
Based on all of the evidence presented and the Board's own view of the subject and comparable properties, the Board found and ruled that the appellants met their burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.    The Board determined that the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2006 was $1,030,000, and therefore ordered an abatement in its Revised Decision in Docket Number F284840 in the amount of $2,341.67.  The Board determined the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2007 also to be $1,030,000 and ordered an abatement in the amount of $2,757.12.

THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD



By:  ____________________________________
Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Commissioner

 On June 13, 2006, within thirty days of service of the Petition Under the Informal Procedure, the assessors elected to transfer the proceedings to the formal docket under G.L. c. 58A, § 7A.
 
 Mr. Handverger included data for one property that was 5,426 square feet.  
In the original Decision issued in these appeals, the Board inadvertently based the abatement amount for Docket Number F284840 on the value of the subject property as initially assessed for fiscal year 2006, and not on its assessed value after the partial abatement granted by the assessors.  The Board issued a Revised Decision simultaneously with these Findings of Fact and Report using the correct assessed value, as abated.   

	ATB 2008-1406