Thomas E. Knatt v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Concord (December 30, 2009)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD


THOMAS E. KNATT	 	v.		BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF     							THE TOWN OF CONCORD

Docket No. F298604				Promulgated:
							December 30, 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 to abate real estate tax assessed to the appellant under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38 by the Town of Concord for fiscal year 2008.  
Commissioner Mulhern heard this appeal.  Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa and Rose joined him in a 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 831 CMR 1.32.   

Thomas E. Knatt, pro se, for the appellant.
 
Lynn Masson, assessor, for the appellee.








FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT

On the basis of testimony and exhibits offered at the hearing of this appeal, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2007, Thomas E. Knatt ("appellant") was the assessed owner of a 0.31-acre parcel of real estate located at 83 Riverside Avenue in the Town of Concord ("subject property").  The parcel is improved with a three-story, Victorian-style, two-family residence which has a wood-frame and shingle exterior.  Originally built circa 1896, a 1,500 square-foot addition was completed in 1994.  Unit #1, known as 83 Riverside Avenue, is the owner's unit and occupies the first floor and a portion of the second floor.  This unit contains approximately 2,873 square feet of living area and has a total of ten rooms, including five bedrooms, as well as three full bathrooms.  The owner's unit also has one fireplace and an attached three-car garage.  Unit #2, known as 76 Pine Street, contains approximately 1,122 square feet of living area and has a total of six rooms, including three bedrooms and also one bathroom.  Unit #2 has off-street parking for three vehicles. 
For fiscal year 2008, the Board of Assessors of Concord ("assessors") valued the subject property at $842,000 and assessed a tax thereon at the rate of $10.72 per thousand, plus a Community Preservation Act surcharge, for a total amount of $9,145.55.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellant timely paid the tax due without incurring interest.  On April 30, 2008, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellant filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors, which the assessors denied on May 22, 2008.  Subsequently, on August 19, 2008, in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the appellant seasonably filed a petition with the Board.  Based on these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.  
At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant argued that the subject property was overvalued because the assessors failed to adequately account for the condition of the subject dwelling.  In support thereof, the appellant offered into evidence a series of photographs of the property which showed various deferred maintenance items, including peeling paint (both interior and exterior), stained carpets, and an outdated bathroom, as evidenced by a pink toilet and sink.    The appellant also offered into evidence a detailed summary of the appellant's ongoing requests for abatement and his purported conversations with the assessors.  The appellant did not offer any affirmative evidence of value such as comparable sales or comparable assessments.
In support of the assessment, the assessors presented a sales-comparison analysis of three comparable properties located in Concord that sold during the period September 15, 2006 and May 18, 2007.  The properties ranged in size from 0.20 acres to 0.93 acres with finished living areas that ranged from 2,218 square feet to 3,264 square feet.  The cited properties sold during the period September 15, 2006 through May 18, 2007 with sale prices that ranged from $735,000 to $875,000.  The assessors' sales-comparison analysis included adjustments for differences including number of bedrooms and bathrooms, attached garage, living area, and overall condition to account for differences between the comparable properties and the subject property.  Finally, the assessors calculated adjusted sale prices that ranged from $832,100 to $907,800 and arrived at an indicated value for the subject property of $842,000 for the fiscal year at issue.
On the basis of the evidence presented, the Board found that the appellant did not provide credible evidence to support his assertion that the subject property was overvalued.  The appellant relied solely on an unquantified claim that the subject property had deferred maintenance which negatively impacted the subject property's value.  The appellant did not offer any affirmative evidence of value such as comparable sales or assessments.  In contrast, the assessors offered into evidence a sales-comparison analysis which support their assessment.  Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the appellant did not meet his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2008 and issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.
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, §§ 11 and 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 presumed to be valid unless the taxpayer meets its burden of proving 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).  
"[S]ales of property usually furnish strong evidence of market value, provided they are arm's-length transactions and thus fairly represent what a buyer has been willing to pay for the property to a willing seller."  Foxboro Associates v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982).  Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within a reasonable time of the assessment date generally contain probative evidence for determining the value of the property at issue.  Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-321, 400 (citing McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929)), aff'd, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008).   
In the present appeal, the appellant argued that the subject property had considerable deferred maintenance which negatively impacted the value of the subject property.  However, the appellant failed to offer any affirmative evidence to support his claim of overvaluation.  The Board has rejected similar unsubstantiated claims by taxpayers that their properties were overvalued.  See Giurleo v. Assessors of Raynham, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports, 2009-644, 647 (finding and ruling that the appellant did not meet his burden of proof where he relied solely on unsupported testimony and a self-prepared statement of condition to support his claim of overvaluation).  In contrast, the assessors offered into evidence a sales-comparison analysis which supported the assessed value.
Based on the evidence presented, the Board found and ruled that the appellant presented no credible, persuasive evidence of overvaluation.  Instead, the appellant relied solely on his own testimony and claim of deferred maintenance which, he argued, negatively impacted the fair market value of the subject property, but failed to quantify the effect of the deferred maintenance on fair cash value.  Further, the appellant did not provide any supporting evidence such as comparable sales or assessments.  Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2008 and issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.  


      THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD



   By: __________________________________
	     Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman

A true copy,


Attest:		______			
	      Clerk of the Board

ATB 2009-1317