Eaton, Casey v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Acton (March 17, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
CASEY EATON 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN
OF ACTON
Docket No. F348548 	Promulgated:
March 17, 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 	Acton 	(“assessors” 	or
“appellee”) to abate a tax on real estate owned by and assessed to
Casey 	Eaton 	(“appellant”) 	and 	Gerald 	Eaton 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2023
(“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Metzer 	heard 	the 	appeal. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco
and 	Commissioners 	Good, 	Elliott, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	her 	in 	the
decision for the appellee.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 830 CMR 1.34.
Casey Eaton, pro se, for the appellant.
Christopher Carroll, assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2025-29

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing
of 	this 	appeal, 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board 	(“Board”) 	made 	the
following findings of fact.
I. Introduction and jurisdiction
On 	January 	1, 	2022, 	the 	appellant 	was 	the 	assessed 	owner 	of
a two-story detached condominium located on 0.51 acres of land at
8 	Settlement 	Way 	(“subject 	property”) 	in 	the
Bellow 	Farms 	condominium 	development, 	a 	complex 	consisting 	of
individual, single-family homes in the Town of Acton. The subject
property 	has 	a 	total 	living 	area 	of 	3,646 	square 	feet, 	comprised
of three bedrooms, three full bathrooms, and a one-half bathroom.
The subject property also features a patio, fireplace, and garage.
According to the property record card, the subject property has an
“excellent” grade and the bath style is “luxurious.”
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject
property at $1,256,900 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of
$17.56 per thousand, in the total amount of $22,071.16, exclusive
of the Community Preservation Act surcharge. The appellant timely
paid the tax due without incurring interest. On January 31, 2023,
the 	appellant 	filed 	an 	application 	for 	abatement 	with 	the
assessors, 	which 	the 	assessors 	denied 	on 	March 	7, 	2023. 	The
appellant timely filed this appeal with the Board on June 6, 2023.
ATB 2025-30

Based 	on 	these 	facts, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	it 	had
jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
II. The parties’ contentions
A. The appellant’s case
The 	appellant 	maintained 	that 	pricing 	and 	valuation 	for
Bellows 	Farm 	historically 	has 	been 	lower 	than 	other 	similar
communities - such as Acorn Park, which she described as a similar
complex located less than a mile away – but that the Town of Acton
had 	begun 	to 	increase 	valuations 	within 	Bellows 	Farm
disproportionately relative to other similar properties within the
town. She claimed that disproportionate valuations by the Town of
Acton 	of 	Bellows 	Farm 	properties 	resulted 	in 	a 	larger 	tax 	burden
on Bellows Farm homeowners.
In 	support 	of 	her 	argument, 	the 	appellant 	testified 	on 	her
own 	behalf 	and 	offered 	into 	evidence 	a 	self-prepared 	analysis
consisting 	of 	statistical 	charts. 	The 	appellant 	provided 	a 	chart
of 	seven 	properties 	in 	Bellows 	Farm, 	including 	the 	subject
property, 	all 	but 	one 	of 	which 	increased 	in 	value 	by 	38 	percent
from 	fiscal 	year 	2022 	to 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	and 	most 	of
which 	increased 	in 	the 	51 	percent 	range 	from 	fiscal 	year 	2021 	to
the fiscal year at issue. The chart also included seven non-Bellows
Farm 	properties 	located 	nearby, 	which 	increased 	on 	average 	19.52
percent 	from 	fiscal 	year 	2022 	to 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	and 	on
ATB 2025-31

average 28.38 percent from fiscal year 2021 to the fiscal year at
issue.
Another chart offered into evidence by the appellant included
six 	non-Bellows 	Farm 	properties 	derived 	from 	Town 	of 	Acton
comparables.1 	These 	properties 	increased 	on 	average 	9.3 	percent
from fiscal year 2022 to the fiscal year at issue and 28.92 percent
from 	fiscal 	year 	2021 	to 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	The 	appellant
noted that these properties’ assessed values were on average 11.72
percent below 2021 sale prices, while Bellows Farm properties were
on average 11.35 percent above 2021 sale prices.
The 	appellant 	contended 	that 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the
subject 	property 	should 	fall 	within 	the 	range 	of 	$998,018 	to
$1,091,337 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	She 	derived 	the 	upper
range by applying a factor of 1.1952 (from the average fiscal year
2022 to 2023 percentage increase in the non-Bellows Farm properties
that the appellant selected) to the subject property’s fiscal year
2022 	assessed 	value 	and 	the 	lower 	range 	by 	applying 	a 	factor 	of
1.093 	(from 	the 	average 	fiscal 	year 	2022 	to 	2023 	percentage
increase in the non-Bellows Farm properties that the assessors had
selected 	but 	not 	introduced 	into 	evidence) 	to 	the 	subject
property’s fiscal year 2022 assessed value.
1 The assessors ultimately used some, but not all, of these comparables in their
own chart entered into evidence. The assessors did not object to the appellant’s
use of this data.
ATB 2025-32

B. The assessors’ case
Assessor 	Christopher 	Carroll 	testified 	on 	behalf 	of 	the
assessors. 	Apart 	from 	jurisdictional 	documents, 	the 	assessors
offered into evidence a chart featuring nine unadjusted comparable
properties located in Acton that sold in 2021 and 2022, with sale
prices 	ranging 	from 	$953,000 	to 	$1,335,000, 	and 	assessed 	values
ranging 	from 	$907,800 	to 	$1,235,700. 	The 	chart 	included 	four
properties 	located 	in 	Bellows 	Farm. 	Assessor 	Carroll 	testified
that the properties were close to equal grade and depreciation as
the subject property, the neighborhoods were similar, and the non-
Bellows 	Farm 	properties 	were 	located 	in 	North 	Acton, 	within 	a
three-mile radius of the subject property. He also explained that
all the Bellows Farm properties were in the same condominium main
parcel, 	which 	he 	analogized 	to 	a 	neighborhood 	factor, 	i.e., 	when
adjustments 	are 	made 	within 	the 	condominium 	parcel, 	adjustments
are made together.
III. The Board’s findings
Based 	on 	the 	above 	and 	all 	the 	evidence 	of 	record, 	and 	as
discussed 	further 	in 	the 	Opinion, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the
appellant 	failed 	to 	establish 	that 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the
subject 	property 	was 	less 	than 	the 	assessed 	value 	for 	the 	fiscal
year at issue. While the appellant provided a statistical analysis,
there 	was 	no 	basis 	from 	which 	the 	Board 	could 	glean 	a 	reduced
assessment 	for 	the 	subject 	property. 	The 	appellant 	failed 	to
ATB 2025-33

establish 	the 	requisite 	intentional 	scheme 	by 	the 	assessors 	to
prove disproportionate assessment. She also offered no comparable
sales in support of a reduction in assessed value. While Assessor
Carroll’s testimony affirmed that values for individual properties
in 	Bellows 	Farm 	increased 	at 	a 	similar 	rate 	in 	recent 	years, 	the
unadjusted 	comparables 	offered 	by 	the 	assessors 	in 	their 	chart
neither supported nor undermined the contested assessment.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee.
OPINION
The 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 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
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
ATB 2025-34

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)). 	In 	the
present 	appeal, 	the 	appellant 	provided 	no 	evidence 	of 	flaws 	or
errors in the assessors’ method of valuation and failed to present
affirmative evidence of overvaluation.
The appellant contended that the assessors disproportionately
assessed 	properties 	in 	the 	Bellows 	Farm 	condominium 	complex,
including 	the 	subject 	property, 	compared 	to 	other 	similar
properties 	in 	Acton. 	“[T]o 	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. The appellant
ATB 2025-35

offered 	no 	such 	evidence 	in 	this 	appeal. 	The 	evidence 	was 	simply
nonexistent 	to 	demonstrate, 	or 	even 	suggest, 	that 	the 	assessors
engaged 	in 	an 	“intentional 	widespread 	scheme 	of 	discrimination.”
Stilson v. Assessors of Gloucester, 385 Mass. 724, 728 (1982).
The 	Board 	has 	consistently 	found 	comparable 	sales 	to 	be
probative 	of 	fair 	cash 	value, 	but 	the 	record 	also 	lacked 	any
evidence of any comparable sales or assessments in support of the
appellant’s 	case. 	See 	Graham 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	West 	Tisbury, 	Mass.
ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2007-321, 	399 	(“The 	fair 	cash
value of property may often best be determined by recent sales of
comparable 	properties 	in 	the 	market.”), 	aff’d, 	73 	Mass. 	App. 	Ct.
1107 	(2008) 	(decision 	under 	Rule 	1:28). 	Further, 	the 	appellant
failed 	to 	offer 	other 	probative 	evidence 	that 	the 	subject
property’s 	assessed 	value 	exceeded 	its 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the
fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	Finally, 	the 	evidence 	presented 	by 	the
assessors 	neither 	supported 	nor 	undermined 	the 	contested
assessment.
[This space intentionally left blank.]
ATB 2025-36

Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	in 	favor 	of 	the
appellee.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ______________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: _________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-37