Appletree Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Abington (June 12, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
APPLETREE REALTY TRUST 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE
TOWN OF ABINGTON
Docket No. F343093 	Promulgated:
June 12, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	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 	Town 	of 	Abington 	(“assessors”
or 	“appellee”) 	to 	abate 	a 	tax 	on 	certain 	real 	estate 	owned 	by
and 	assessed 	to 	Appletree 	Realty 	Trust 	(“appellant”) 	for 	fiscal
year 2021 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Good 	(“Presiding 	Commissioner”) 	heard 	this
appeal 	and 	issued 	a 	single-member 	decision 	for 	the 	appellee 	in
accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.32.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request 	by 	the 	appellant 	under 	G.L. 	c. 	58A, 	§ 	13 	and 	831 	CMR
1.34.
William K. Brown, Esq., for the appellant.
Jolanta Briffett, assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2025-173

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	the 	testimony 	and 	exhibits 	entered 	into 	evidence
at 	the 	hearing 	of 	this 	appeal, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	made
the following findings of fact.
I. Introduction and jurisdiction
On 	January 	1, 	2020, 	the 	relevant 	date 	of 	valuation 	and
assessment 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	the 	appellant 	was 	the
assessed 	owner 	of 	a 	0.50-acre 	parcel 	of 	land 	located 	at 	1212
Bedford 	Street 	in 	the 	Town 	of 	Abington 	(“subject 	property”). 	The
subject 	property, 	an 	unpaved 	parcel 	described 	as 	a 	parking 	lot,
abuts 	and 	has 	access 	to 	Route 	18. 	To 	facilitate 	a 	project 	to
widen 	Route 	18 	(“project”), 	the 	Commonwealth 	exercised 	permanent
and 	temporary 	takings 	of 	portions 	of 	the 	subject 	property. 	The
Commonwealth 	compensated 	the 	appellant 	for 	the 	permanent 	taking
in July 2022 in the amount of $214,000.
The 	assessors 	valued 	the 	subject 	property 	at 	$209,400 	for
the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	A 	tax 	was 	assessed 	thereon 	in 	the
amount 	of 	$16.48 	per 	$1,000, 	for 	a 	tax 	due 	of 	$3,477.95,
inclusive 	of 	the 	Community 	Preservation 	Act 	surcharge. 	The
appellant 	failed 	to 	pay 	timely 	and 	incurred 	interest, 	but 	G.L.
c. 	59, 	§ 	64 	does 	not 	preclude 	jurisdiction 	on 	the 	basis
of interest if 	the 	tax 	due 	is 	$5,000 or 	less. 	The 	appellant
filed 	an 	abatement 	application 	on 	February 	1, 	2021, 	which 	was
denied 	by 	the 	assessors 	on 	March 	3, 	2021. 	The 	appellant 	timely
ATB 2025-174

filed 	a 	petition 	with 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board 	(“Board”) 	on 	June
3, 	2021.1 	Based 	on 	these 	facts, 	the Presiding 	Commissioner 	found
and 	ruled 	that 	the 	Board 	had 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and 	decide
this appeal.
II. The appellant’s case
The 	appellant 	claimed 	that 	it 	was 	entitled 	to 	a 	reduction
in 	assessed 	value 	due 	to 	the 	inability 	to 	use/rent 	the 	subject
property 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the 	taking.2 	Estimating 	that 	the 	project
ran 	approximately 	four 	years, 	from 	2018 	to 	the 	end 	of 	2022, 	the
appellant 	alleged 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	mainly 	impacted
in 2020, 2021, and 2022 by the project.
The 	appellant 	contended 	that 	prior 	to 	the 	relevant 	time
periods 	it 	rented 	the 	subject 	property 	to 	a 	landscaping 	company
to 	store 	trucks 	and 	equipment, 	but 	that 	the 	project 	inhibited
the 	continued 	rental 	because 	of 	work 	trucks, 	police 	details,
storage 	of 	gravel 	and 	other 	materials 	continually 	encumbering
the 	subject 	property 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the 	project. 	On 	its
abatement 	application, 	the 	appellant 	asserted 	an 	opinion 	of
value 	of 	$110,000. 	During 	the 	hearing, 	the 	appellant 	provided 	no
specific 	opinion 	of 	value 	and 	instead 	asserted 	that 	the 	subject
1 	The 	appellant’s 	petition 	was 	stamped 	as received by 	the 	Board 	on 	June 	8,
2021, 	but 	the 	petition 	was 	mailed 	in 	an 	envelope postmarked June 	3, 	2021.
Under 	G.L. 	c. 	58A, 	§ 	7, 	the 	Board 	used 	the 	postmark 	date 	as 	the 	date 	of
filing.
2 The Board’s jurisdiction in this appeal was limited to the fair cash value
of 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	and 	not 	whether 	the
appellant was compensated fairly for the permanent and temporary takings.
ATB 2025-175

property 	had 	no 	intrinsic 	value 	on 	the 	relevant 	valuation 	date
because 	its 	only 	value 	as 	a 	vacant 	lot 	was 	to 	rent 	it 	for
storage 	or 	parking 	and 	the 	appellant 	was 	completely 	deprived 	of
the ability to do so.
The 	appellant 	presented 	its 	case 	through 	the 	testimony 	of
Vincent 	D’Andrea, 	the 	trustee 	of 	the 	appellant, 	and 	various
documents, 	including 	a 	MassDOT 	drawing 	featuring 	the 	subject
property; 	an 	affidavit 	from 	a 	nearby 	business 	owner 	dated
January 	17, 	2024 	(“2024 	affidavit”); 	and 	a 	lease 	dated 	September
1, 2021 (“2021 lease”).
The 	2024 	affidavit 	- 	from 	an 	individual 	named 	Yasmine
Zakhary, 	identified 	as 	the 	owner 	of 	a 	business 	called 	Yaz’s
Table 	- 	stated 	as 	follows: 	“During 	the 	entirety 	of 	the
reconstruction 	of 	Route 	18 	in 	Abington, 	I 	personally 	observed
dump 	trucks, 	heavy 	construction 	equipment, 	trailers 	and 	material
like 	piping, 	curb 	stones, 	storage 	of 	gravel, 	crushed 	stone
constantly 	on 	the 	vacant 	lot 	owned 	by 	Appletree 	Realty 	Trust 	at
1212 Bedford St. Abington, MA.”
The 	2021 	lease 	was 	entered 	into 	by 	and 	between 	Vincent
D’Andrea, 	as 	the 	trustee 	of 	the 	appellant, 	as 	lessor, 	and 	an
entity 	called 	Tree 	Services 	of 	New 	England, 	Inc., 	as 	lessee. 	The
described 	“premises” 	pursuant 	to 	the 	2021 	lease 	was 	as 	follows:
“The 	premises 	consists 	of 	Unit 	A 	office 	space, 	Highland 	Place, 	3
Highland 	Road, 	Abington, 	Massachusetts, 	containing 	approximately
ATB 2025-176

121 	square 	feet 	of 	space, 	with 	one 	outside 	parking 	space. 	Lot 	A
located 	across 	the 	street 	containing 	approximately 	19,000 	sq.
feet, 	as 	depicted 	by 	the 	attached 	map.” 	The 	“attached 	map” 	was
not offered as part of the record.
III. The appellee’s case
The 	appellee 	presented 	jurisdictional 	documents, 	as 	well 	as
a 	brief 	statement 	from 	assessor 	Jolanta 	Briffett, 	both 	verbally
at the hearing and in writing.
IV. The Presiding Commissioner’s findings
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	presented, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner
found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	establish 	that 	it
was entitled to an abatement.
Initially, 	the 	appellant 	provided 	no 	evidence 	to 	document
the 	state 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	as 	of 	January 	1, 	2020, 	the
relevant 	date 	of 	valuation 	in 	this 	appeal. 	The 	2021 	lease 	was
entered 	into 	more 	than 	a 	year 	after 	the 	relevant 	date 	of
valuation 	and 	did 	not 	clearly 	identify 	the 	subject 	property 	as
part 	of 	the 	lease. 	Regardless, 	the 	2021 	lease 	contradicted 	the
appellant’s 	own 	assertions 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	was
impacted 	by 	the 	project 	in 	2020, 	2021, 	and 	2022, 	because 	Tree
Services 	of 	New 	England, 	Inc. 	paid 	rent 	to 	the 	appellant 	for 	its
use of the property.
The 	2024 	affidavit 	was 	likewise 	not 	probative, 	providing 	no
way 	to 	discern 	any 	dates 	and 	times, 	and 	providing 	no 	way 	to
ATB 2025-177

distinguish 	whether 	any 	of 	the 	trucks 	and 	other 	equipment
present 	were 	on 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	use 	by 	the 	project 	or
the 	landscaping 	company 	to 	which 	the 	appellant 	had 	leased 	the
subject property.
Further, 	and 	critically, 	the 	appellant 	provided 	the 	Board
with 	no 	quantifiable 	evidence 	of 	any 	diminution 	in 	value 	of 	the
subject 	property 	due 	to 	the 	project, 	and 	thus 	it 	did 	not
establish 	that 	the 	assessed 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property
exceeded 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	the
fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	and 	ruled
that 	the 	appellant 	did 	not 	meet 	its 	burden 	of 	demonstrating 	that
the 	subject 	property 	was 	overvalued 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue
and issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.
OPINION
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 	of 	them 	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
ATB 2025-178

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, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).
The 	2021 	lease 	and 	2024 	affidavit 	offered 	by 	the 	appellant
failed 	to 	expose 	flaws 	in 	the 	assessors’ 	method 	of 	valuation 	and
failed 	to 	undermine 	the 	assessors’ 	valuation. 	Further, 	the
appellant 	provided 	the 	Board 	with 	no 	quantifiable 	evidence 	of
diminution 	of 	value 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the 	project 	during 	the
relevant 	time 	period 	or 	any 	time 	period. 	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”).
ATB 2025-179

In 	sum, 	the 	appellant 	offered 	neither 	persuasive 	evidence
exposing 	errors 	in 	the 	assessors’ 	valuation 	methodology 	nor
affirmative 	evidence 	of 	value 	that 	undermined 	the 	assessors’
valuation.
Accordingly, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	and 	ruled
that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	meet 	its 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the
subject 	property 	was 	overvalued 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	and
issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: 	__________________________________
Patricia M. Good, Commissioner
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-180