Laskowski, Cathy v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Belchertown (March 19, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
CATHY M. LASKOWSKI 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF BELCHERTOWN
Docket No. F348509 	Promulgated:
March 19, 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 	Town 	of 	Belchertown 	(“appellee”
or “assessors”) to abate taxes on real estate owned by and assessed
to Cathy M. Laskowski (“appellant”) for fiscal year 2023 (“fiscal
year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Metzer 	(“Presiding 	Commissioner”) 	heard 	the
appeal 	and 	issued 	a 	single-member 	decision 	for 	the 	appellee 	in
accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1 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.
Cathy M. Laskowski, pro se, for the appellant.
Jeffrey Blake, Esq., for the appellee.
ATB 2025-38

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	testimony 	and 	documents 	admitted 	into 	evidence
during the hearing of this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner made
the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2022, the relevant valuation date for the fiscal
year 	at 	issue, 	the 	appellant 	was 	the 	owner 	of 	a 	0.92975-acre
improved 	parcel 	of 	land 	located 	at 	37 	Hamilton 	Street 	in
Belchertown 	(“subject 	property”). 	For 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue,
the appellee valued the subject property at $438,800 and assessed
a 	tax 	thereon 	at 	a 	rate 	of 	$16.32 	per 	$1,000 	in 	the 	total 	amount
of $7,244.16, including the applicable Community Preservation Act
surcharge. 	The 	appellant 	timely 	paid 	the 	tax 	without 	incurring
interest. 	On 	January 	30, 	2023, 	the 	appellant 	timely 	filed 	an
abatement application for the subject property. On March 7, 2023,
the 	appellee 	granted 	a 	partial 	abatement 	reducing 	the 	subject
property’s 	assessed 	value 	to 	$429,500. 	Not 	satisfied 	with 	the
abatement, 	on 	June 	5, 	2023, 	the 	appellant 	seasonably 	filed 	her
appeal 	with 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board 	(“Board”). 	Based 	on 	the
information 	in 	this 	paragraph, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found
and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this
appeal.
The 	subject 	property 	is 	improved 	with 	a 	single-family 	home
built 	in 	2010 	containing 	2,141 	square 	feet 	of 	living 	area 	with 	a
total 	of 	six 	rooms, 	including 	three 	bedrooms 	as 	well 	as 	two 	full
ATB 2025-39

bathrooms 	and 	one 	half 	bathroom, 	plus 	an 	attached 	two-car 	garage
(“subject 	home”). 	Upon 	inspecting 	the 	subject 	property 	when 	the
appellant 	applied 	for 	an 	abatement, 	the 	appellee 	reduced 	the
subject 	home’s 	rating 	from 	“good” 	to 	“average” 	condition 	and
granted an abatement based on overvaluation. As abated, the subject
home’s 	assessment 	was 	reduced 	from 	$377,800 	to 	$368,500 	and 	the
land assessment remained at $61,000.
The 	appellant 	presented 	her 	case 	through 	her 	testimony 	and
the 	submission 	of 	documents, 	including 	a 	spreadsheet 	compiling
comparative 	information 	relating 	to 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	two
other 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties, 	including 	features 	and
total 	assessed 	values 	for 	fiscal 	years 	2022 	and 	2023. 	She
challenged 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessment 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year
at 	issue 	based 	on 	the 	theory 	of 	disproportionate 	assessment. 	The
appellant 	claimed 	that 	the 	subject 	home’s 	assessed 	value 	was
disproportionately high as compared to the assessed values of the
homes 	of 	her 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties, 	noting 	that 	the
assessed 	value 	of 	her 	home 	had 	increased 	over 	the 	prior 	fiscal
year 	by 	a 	higher 	percentage 	than 	the 	percentage 	increase 	of 	her
two purportedly comparable homes.
The 	appellant 	opined 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	should 	have
been 	assessed 	at 	$416,080 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	She 	did
not 	argue 	or 	present 	evidence 	to 	establish 	that 	the 	subject
property’s fair cash value was less than its assessed value.
ATB 2025-40

When questioned by the Presiding Commissioner, the appellant
admitted that she had no knowledge of an intentional discriminatory
policy 	against 	the 	subject 	property 	that 	would 	have 	led 	to 	its
alleged 	disproportionate 	assessment. 	The 	appellant 	further
admitted 	that 	her 	two 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties 	were 	not
located within a close proximity to the subject property, opining
that 	the 	properties 	were 	not 	within 	an 	easy 	walking 	distance 	but
perhaps within a “bikeable” distance.
The appellee presented its case through the testimony of John
Whelihan, 	the 	town’s 	Director 	of 	Assessments, 	as 	well 	as 	the
submission 	of 	documents, 	including 	the 	requisite 	jurisdictional
documents. 	The 	Director 	of 	Assessments 	testified 	that 	the 	fiscal
year 	at 	issue’s 	values 	for 	properties 	within 	the 	town 	had 	been
provided to and certified by the Department of Revenue.
Considering 	all 	the 	evidence, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner
found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	establish 	or 	even
raise 	an 	inference 	that 	the 	assessors 	engaged 	in 	an 	intentional
scheme of discriminatory, disproportionate assessment against the
appellant or the subject property. Moreover, the appellant failed
to 	advance 	any 	evidence 	to 	suggest 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s
overall 	assessment 	exceeded 	its 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the 	fiscal
year at issue.
Accordingly, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	decided 	this 	appeal
for the appellee.
ATB 2025-41

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
upon which a willing buyer and a willing seller will agree if both
are 	fully 	informed 	and 	under 	no 	compulsion. 	Boston 	Gas 	Co. 	v.
Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	334 	Mass. 	549, 	566 	(1956). 	An 	appellant 	has
the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	property 	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 	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 	this 	Board, 	“[t]he 	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)).
To 	demonstrate 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	over 	assessed,
the appellant here raised a claim of disproportionate assessment;
ATB 2025-42

she asserted that the subject home was assessed disproportionately
in 	comparison 	with 	two 	purportedly 	comparable 	homes 	located 	in
Belchertown. This claim is without legal merit. Massachusetts case
law 	provides 	that, 	“to 	obtain 	relief 	on 	the 	basis 	of
disproportionate assessment, a taxpayer must show that there is an
‘intentional policy or scheme of valuing properties or classes of
property 	at 	a 	lower 	percentage’ 	of 	fair 	cash 	value 	than 	the
taxpayer’s 	property.” 	Brown 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Brookline, 	43 	Mass.
App. 	Ct. 	327, 	328 	(1997) 	(quoting 	Shoppers’ 	World, 	Inc. 	v.
Assessors 	of 	Framingham, 	348 	Mass. 	366, 	377 	(1965)). 	See 	also
Wardwell v. Assessors of Wellesley, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and
Reports 	2021-160, 	165-66; 	Scullane 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Wellesley,
Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2001-85, 95.
In 	the 	present 	appeal, 	the 	appellant 	asserted 	that 	the
assessed value of the subject home had increased over that for the
prior fiscal year at a higher percentage than the assessed values
of 	her 	two 	purportedly 	comparable 	homes. 	However, 	the 	appellant
did not offer evidence to support an assertion that the assessors
engaged 	in 	an 	“intentional 	widespread 	scheme 	of 	discrimination”
against 	her 	or 	the 	subject 	property. 	Stilson 	v. 	Assessors 	of
Gloucester, 385 Mass. 724, 727-28 (1982). Without satisfying this
key 	component 	of 	disproportionate 	assessment 	as 	defined 	in
Massachusetts law, the appellant’s claim has no merit.
ATB 2025-43

Furthermore, 	the 	appellant 	presented 	no 	evidence 	to 	support
that the subject property was assessed for more than its fair cash
value for the fiscal year at issue.
In 	sum, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the
appellant 	failed 	to 	meet 	her 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	subject
property 	was 	overvalued 	or 	disproportionately 	assessed 	for 	the
fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner
issued a decision for the appellee.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: 	__________________________________
Patricia Ann Metzer, Commissioner
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-44