Nathan T. & Shirley F. Krasnigor, Trustees, Wisteria Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Wayland (April 3, 2009)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

		      APPELLATE TAX BOARD


NATHAN T. & SHIRLEY F.	v.	   BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF  
KRASNIGOR, TRUSTEES,  			   THE TOWN OF WAYLAND
WISTERIA REALTY TRUST			   

Docket No. F294813			        Promulgated:
							   April 3, 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 Wayland ("assessors"), to abate taxes on certain real estate located in the Town of Wayland, owned by and assessed to the appellants under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2008.
	Commissioner Rose heard the appeal. Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Egan, and Mulhern joined him in a decision for the appellee.  
These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellants under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.  

	Nathan T. Krasnigor, pro se, for the appellants.
	Molly Reed, 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 Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2007, Nathan T. and Shirley F. Krasnigor, Trustees of Wisteria Realty Trust, ("appellants"), were the assessed owners of a certain parcel of real estate located at 1404 Wisteria Way in the Town of Wayland ("subject property").  The subject property is a condominium improved with a "Foxglove-model" townhouse.  It is the smallest of the four models in its condominium complex.  The dwelling contains approximately 2,274 square feet of finished living area, consisting of a living room, dining room, a kitchen, two bedrooms and a loft.  There are two full bathrooms and a half bath as well as a deck and a finished basement.
For fiscal year 2008, the assessors valued the subject property at $688,900 and assessed a tax thereon, at a rate of $14.98 per $1,000, in the amount of $10,319.72. Wayland's Collector of Taxes mailed the fiscal year 2008 tax bills on December 20, 2007. In accordance with G.L.   c. 59, § 57C, the appellants paid the tax due without incurring interest. On January 24, 2008, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellants timely filed an abatement application, which was denied on April 7, 2008. On May 7, 2008, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the appellants seasonably filed an appeal with the Board.  On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
The appellants argued at the hearing of this appeal that the subject property was overvalued in comparison to the other Foxglove condominiums in the complex.  The appellants acknowledged that their unit, unlike the other Foxglove units, had a finished basement.  By adding their asserted cost to finish their basement, $9,900, to the assessed value of the other Foxglove units, the appellants arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $673,000.  
In support of their argument, the appellants offered into evidence a self-prepared valuation statement, photographs of the finished basement, and a contractor's quote for the cost of the basement construction.
The appellants also offered the testimony of Nathan T. Krasnigor.  Mr. Krasnigor testified that, other than its smaller size, the only difference between the subject property and the other Foxglove condominiums was its finished basement. The appellants asserted that the fiscal year 2008 assessment for the other Foxglove style units without finished basements was $663,100, $25,800 less than the assessed value of the subject property.  However, the appellants did not produce property record cards or other documentary evidence concerning the size, amenities and assessments of the other Foxglove units.
The appellants also offered into evidence a contractor's quote, dated May 2000, showing an estimated cost of approximately $9,900 to finish the basement of the subject property.  However, they failed to introduce evidence concerning the actual costs of finishing the basement.  
In support of their assessment, the assessors offered the testimony of Molly Reed, assistant assessor for Wayland.  Ms. Reed presented a sales-comparison analysis of four condominium properties that sold in Wayland between May 17, 2006 and November 8, 2006.  These properties ranged in size from 2,153 square feet to 2,935 square feet, and the Board found that the assessors made appropriate adjustments for size and other factors.  The assessors' comparable sale prices ranged from $718,495 to $910,000.  One of the four sales-comparison properties was a Foxglove-style condominium.  
On the basis of the evidence presented, the Board found that the appellants did not provide credible evidence to support their claim that the subject property was overvalued.  The appellants based their claim on the assessed value of other Foxglove condominiums that they claimed were comparable to the subject property, but they did not present documentary evidence concerning those properties and their assessed values through property record cards or other affirmative evidence.  Additionally, the appellants did not prove that the subject property was smaller than the other condominiums and did not offer any documentation to establish their respective living areas.
In contrast, the Board found that the assessors' sales-comparison analysis supported the subject property's assessment for fiscal year 2008. 
Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the appellants did not meet their burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2008.

OPINION  
	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.  The definition of fair cash value is the price upon which a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree if both are fully informed and neither is under 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 as a matter of law.  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.  Id.  The taxpayer may sustain this burden by introducing affirmative 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 the present appeal, the appellants relied solely on their unsupported testimony and self-prepared valuation statement to support their overvaluation claim.  The appellants offered no comparable-sales data or other supporting data regarding the other Foxglove condominiums. The appellants also failed to prove the extent to which the finished basement impacted the assessed value of the subject property. 
By contrast, the assessors offered evidence to demonstrate that they had properly determined the value of the subject property by providing a valuation analysis, which the Board found to be reliable evidence of the fair cash value of the subject property.
The Board thus found and ruled that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue.  On the basis of the foregoing, the Board decided this appeal for the appellee.



 	APPELLATE TAX BOARD
               
				    By:________________________________
					  Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman



A true copy:



Attest:	_____________________
		Clerk of the Board

260


	ATB 2009-254