Walrath, Julie A. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Stow (April 18, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
JULIE A. WALRATH 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF STOW
Docket No. F349284 	Promulgated:
April 18, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	originally 	filed 	under 	the 	informal
procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7A and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and
65 from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the Town of Stow
(“appellee” or “assessors”) to abate a tax on real estate owned by
and assessed to Julie A. Walrath, Trustee of the Walcon Revocable
Trust (“appellant”) for fiscal year 2023 (“fiscal year at issue”).1
Commissioner 	Elliott 	heard 	the 	appeal. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco
and 	Commissioners 	Good, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	him 	in 	the
decision for the appellee.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request by the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Julie A. Walrath, pro se, for the appellant.
Kristen Fox, Assessor, for the appellee.
Within 	30 	days 	of 	service 	of 	the 	Statement 	Under 	Informal 	Procedure, 	the
assessors elected to transfer the proceedings to the formal procedure. See G.L.
c. 58A, § 7A.
ATB 2025-87
1

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	testimony 	and 	documents 	admitted 	into 	evidence
during 	the 	hearing 	of 	this 	appeal, 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board
(“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2022, the relevant valuation date for the fiscal
year at issue, the appellant was the assessed owner of a .99-acre
parcel 	of 	land 	improved 	with 	a 	single-family 	home 	built 	in 	1970,
located at 40 Evelyn Road in the Town of Stow (“subject property”).
The home contains 2,396 square feet of living area, which consists
of 	eight 	rooms, 	including 	four 	bedrooms, 	as 	well 	as 	two 	full
bathrooms and one half bathroom. The subject property also includes
a two-car attached garage, a farmer’s porch, and a rear deck.
For the fiscal year at issue, the appellee valued the subject
property 	at 	$609,200 	and 	assessed 	a 	tax 	thereon, 	at 	a 	rate 	of
$18.13 per $1,000 in the total amount of $11,321.75, including the
applicable 	Community 	Preservation 	Act 	surcharge. 	The 	appellant
timely paid the tax due without incurring interest. On January 31,
2023, the appellant timely filed an abatement application for the
subject 	property, 	which 	the 	appellee 	denied 	on 	April 	3, 	2023. 	On
June 	14, 	2023, 	the 	appellant 	seasonably 	filed 	an 	appeal 	with 	the
Board. 	Based 	on 	this 	information, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that
it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
The 	appellant 	presented 	her 	case 	through 	her 	testimony 	and
the 	submission 	of 	a 	self-prepared 	valuation 	analysis. 	The
ATB 2025-88

appellant argued that the subject property was overvalued compared
to 	the 	assessed 	values 	of 	five 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties
located 	in 	the 	same 	neighborhood, 	which 	ranged 	in 	assessed 	value
from 	$544,600 	to 	$580,100 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	The
appellant’s 	analysis 	also 	included 	three 	sales 	of 	purportedly
comparable properties occurring in 2021, with sales prices ranging
from 	$480,000 	to 	$595,000. 	The 	appellant 	failed 	to 	make 	any
adjustments 	to 	account 	for 	the 	differences 	between 	the 	subject
property 	and 	any 	of 	the 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties. 	One
significant difference that the appellant failed to adjust for was
the disparity in sizes of living area. While the subject property’s
living 	area 	consisted 	of 	2,396 	square 	feet, 	the 	purportedly
comparable 	properties 	widely 	ranged 	in 	living 	area 	from 	1,504
square 	feet 	to 	2,708 	square 	feet, 	thus 	requiring 	adjustments 	to
make a meaningful comparison with the subject property.
In 	addition, 	the 	appellant 	contended 	that 	there 	had 	been
errors 	in 	data 	collection 	by 	the 	assessors, 	alleging 	that 	the
assessed value of the subject property failed to reflect that the
rear 	deck 	and 	the 	above-ground 	swimming 	pool 	were 	of 	such
dilapidated condition as to render them unusable and without adding
any appreciable value to the subject property. The appellant also
objected 	to 	the 	notation 	on 	the 	property 	record 	card 	that 	the
subject 	property 	had 	a 	heat 	pump, 	as 	she 	testified 	that 	although
the home had air conditioning, it was not powered by a heat pump.
ATB 2025-89

Based on the foregoing, the appellant’s opinion of value of
the subject property for the fiscal year at issue was $575,000.
The 	appellee 	presented 	their 	case 	through 	the 	testimony 	of
Kristen 	Fox, 	assessor, 	and 	the 	submission 	of 	a 	comparable-sales
analysis. 	The 	analysis 	consisted 	of 	sales 	of 	six 	purportedly
comparable 	properties 	occurring 	within 	a 	year 	of 	the 	relevant
valuation date, three of which were the same properties offered as
comparable sales by the appellant. Unlike the appellant, however,
the 	assessors 	calculated 	adjusted 	values 	that 	allowed 	for
meaningful 	comparison 	with 	the 	assessed 	value 	of 	the 	subject
property. 	Ms. 	Fox 	adjusted 	the 	comparable-sales 	properties 	for
differences between those properties and the subject property that
affect fair cash value, including adjusting for the size of living
area, 	grade, 	and 	condition, 	as 	well 	as 	other 	features. 	After
adjustments, 	the 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties 	yielded
indicated values for the subject property ranging from $615,500 to
$653,400. 	The 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	of 	$609,200 	fell
below that range.
Ms. Fox further addressed the appellant’s claim of errors on
the subject property’s property record card for the fiscal year at
issue. Ms. Fox testified that the swimming pool had not contributed
to 	the 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property. 	She 	also 	testified 	that
although the property record card incorrectly specified that there
was 	a 	heat 	pump, 	no 	additional 	value 	was 	attributed 	to 	the 	heat
ATB 2025-90

pump 	relative 	to 	what 	would 	have 	been 	attributed 	to 	the 	existing
air 	conditioning 	feature 	without 	a 	heat 	pump. 	Ms. 	Fox 	further
testified 	that 	the 	rear 	deck 	was 	present 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the 	home
valuation 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	and 	that 	it 	had 	properly
contributed value of $1,700.
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	presented, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled
that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	meet 	her 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the
fair cash value of the subject property was lower than its assessed
value for the fiscal year at issue. The Board found that although
the appellant’s analysis contained both assessed values and sales
values for properties in the neighborhood that had similarities to
the 	subject 	property, 	it 	failed 	to 	include 	adjustments 	for 	the
significant 	differences 	between 	those 	properties 	and 	the 	subject
property. 	The 	appellant’s 	analysis 	therefore 	failed 	to 	provide
persuasive 	evidence 	in 	establishing 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	the
subject property for the fiscal year at issue.
Furthermore, 	although 	the 	appellant 	argued 	that 	the
conditions 	of 	the 	pool 	and 	the 	rear 	deck, 	and 	the 	absence 	of 	a
heat pump should reduce the assessed value of the subject property,
the 	Board 	found 	that 	neither 	the 	pool 	nor 	the 	heat 	pump 	had
contributed to the assessed value, and that the rear deck had been
appropriately accounted for in the valuation.
Moreover, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the 	assessors’ 	comparable-
sales analysis, which featured arm’s-length sales of the same three
ATB 2025-91

properties 	that 	the 	appellant 	had 	cited 	as 	comparable-sales
properties, included appropriate adjustments and yielded indicated
values 	that 	supported 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	for
the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee.
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 	the 	Board, 	“[t]he 	taxpayer 	may 	present
persuasive 	evidence 	of 	overvaluation 	either 	by 	exposing 	flaws 	or
ATB 2025-92

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)).
Sales 	of 	comparable 	realty 	in 	the 	same 	geographic 	area 	and
within 	a 	reasonable 	time 	of 	the 	valuation 	date 	generally 	contain
probative 	evidence 	for 	determining 	the 	value 	of 	the 	property 	at
issue. See Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings
of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2007-321, 	400 	(citing 	McCabe 	v. 	Chelsea, 	265
Mass. 494, 496 (1929)), aff’d, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008).
Properties 	used 	in 	a 	comparable 	assessment 	or 	comparable
sales analysis must be comparable to the subject property, meaning
that 	they 	must 	share 	“fundamental 	similarities” 	with 	the 	subject
property, 	including 	similar 	age, 	location, 	and 	size. 	Lattuca 	v.
Robsham, 	442 	Mass. 	205, 	216 	(2004). 	“Once 	basic 	comparability 	is
established, 	it 	is 	then 	necessary 	to 	make 	adjustments 	for 	the
differences, 	looking 	primarily 	to 	the 	relative 	quality 	of 	the
properties, 	to 	develop 	a 	market 	indicator 	of 	value.” 	New 	Boston
Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 470 (1981).
To demonstrate that the subject property was overvalued, the
appellant submitted an analysis comprised of both assessed values
and 	sale 	prices 	of 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties 	in 	the
neighborhood 	of 	the 	subject 	property. 	The 	Board 	found, 	however,
that the appellant failed to make any adjustments for differences
ATB 2025-93

with 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	that 	the 	analysis 	thus 	failed 	to
serve 	as 	persuasive 	evidence 	in 	establishing 	the 	fair 	cash 	value
of the subject property for the fiscal year at issue. In contrast,
the 	assessors’ 	comparable-sales 	analysis, 	which 	adjusted 	for
living area, grade, and condition, among other features, supported
the subject property’s assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the
appellant 	failed 	to 	meet 	her 	burden 	of 	proving 	a 	fair 	cash 	value
for 	the 	subject 	property 	that 	was 	lower 	than 	its 	assessed 	value
for the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in
this appeal.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By:
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest:
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-94