Sartor Realty Trust, Marie J. Sartor, Trustee v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Belmont (July 25, 2008)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


SARTOR REALTY TRUST,         v.       BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
MARIE J. SARTOR, TRUSTEE			   THE TOWN OF BELMONT
							   

Docket No. F289138				   Promulgated:
                                      July 25, 2008
					


	This is an appeal 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 taxes on real estate located in the Town of Belmont owned by and assessed to the appellant under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2007. 
	Commissioner Mulhern heard the appeal. Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa and Egan joined him 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 831 CMR 1.32. 

	Severino Sartor, pro se, for the appellant. 

	Paul R. Mordarski, Esq., 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, 2006, Marie J. Sartor, Trustee ("appellant") was the assessed owner of a 17,060-square- foot parcel of real estate located at 23 Clifton Street in the Town of Belmont ("subject property").  The property is improved with an 1,831-square-foot single-family ranch-style dwelling.  
	For fiscal year 2007, the Board of Assessors of Belmont ("assessors") valued the subject property at $639,000 and assessed a tax thereon, which the appellant paid timely, at a rate of $10.31 per thousand.  The appellant timely filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors on January 11, 2007.  On March 27, 2007, the assessors denied the request for abatement.  On May 7, 2007, the appellant seasonably filed a Petition Under the Informal Procedure with the Board.  On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
	The ranch-style home on the subject property was built in 1950.  It is finished with an asphalt-shingled roof, wood and brick sidewalls, and double-hung windows.  The home has eight rooms which include three bedrooms, as well as one full bathroom and two half bathrooms.  The basement is partially finished and contains approximately 480 square feet of additional living space.  The home also features a detached two-car garage and a patio.  
	The appellant prepared a chart illustrating the assessment history of the subject property and two nearby properties located at 29 and 35 Clifton Street. The appellant noted on the chart that the subject property's assessed value had increased $22,000 from fiscal year 2006 to  fiscal year 2007, while the assessed value of the properties at 29 and 35 Clifton both decreased by $17,000.
	Further, the appellant introduced into evidence an undated, self-prepared statement discussing the noise pollution caused by the subject property's proximity to Route 2.  The appellant also offered into evidence the property record cards of the subject property and the properties located at 29 and 35 Clifton Street.  The appellant argued that based on the evidence, including the history of the assessments in the area and the proximity of the property to Route 2 and Pleasant Street, the fair market value of the property should be $600,000.
	The assessors offered into evidence a summary appraisal report prepared by Richard Simmons, the assessing administrator of Belmont.  The report described the subject property, its location and a general neighborhood description.  Mr. Simmons considered the subject property to be generally well maintained but noted that certain aspects of the home were in need of modernization. The report also cited three sales, which Mr. Simmons deemed comparable to the subject property.  The comparable sales ranged from 1,431 to 1,688 square feet in dwelling size and from 8,090 to 15,166 square feet in lot size.  One of the sales was located on the same street as the subject property.  That comparable property sold for $648,700 on May 2, 2006.  After adjusting for differences between the comparable sales and the subject property, Mr. Simmons determined an indicated value range between $668,300 and $735,100.  Based on this data, Mr. Simmons valued the subject property at $674,100 as of January 1, 2006.   
	After considering the appellant's comparison of the subject property to the properties at 29 and 35 Clifton Street, the Board found that each of the nearby properties were substantially different in style to the subject property and also had different lot sizes. The subject property had the largest lot size, with 17,060 square feet, compared to the 14,880 and 12,988 square feet of the nearby 29 and 25 Clifton Street properties.   
	The appellant argued that noise pollution from nearby Route 2 diminished the value of the subject property.  The property record card entered into evidence reflects that the subject property was given a "highway" rating, which negatively impacted its assessed value.  The Board therefore found that the subject property's proximity to Route 2 had been appropriately taken into consideration by the assessors.  
	The Board also found that the assessors supported their valuation with substantial evidence, including a credible comparable sales analysis.  That analysis included the property located at 15 Clifton Street, which had a smaller lot size and dwelling size than the subject property, as well as a lower quality rating.  The 15 Clifton Street property sold for $648,700 just four months after the relevant valuation date.  
	For these reasons, the Board found the appellant's evidence and arguments of overvaluation unpersuasive, and found the assessor's evidence and arguments credible.  Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.

OPINION
The assessors are required to assess real property at its fair cash value as of the first day of January preceding each fiscal year. G.L. c. 59, § 38.  Fair cash value 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).  Until the taxpayer meets that burden, the assessment is presumed to be valid.  Id.  A taxpayer may meet the burden by providing 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 appellant relied on the assessment histories of properties, which she deemed to be sufficiently similar to the subject property.  The Board did not find these properties to be sufficiently comparable since they were not the same style of dwelling and did not have a similar lot size as the subject property.  The evidence of noise pollution also failed to substantiate that the subject property was overvalued because the subject property had already been given a "highway" rating by the assessors, which appropriately lowered the assessed value of the subject property to account for this factor.  Accordingly, this evidence was not persuasive evidence of fair cash value in this appeal.  
	Sales of comparable properties are strong indicators of the fair cash value of a property.  Foxboro Associates v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982).  The assessors presented evidence of comparable sales including one that was on the same street as the subject property.  This comparable property sold for $648,000, which was higher than the assessed value of the subject property.  That sale included a smaller parcel of land and a smaller dwelling than the subject property and occurred just four months after the relevant valuation date.  The Board found that this supported the subject assessment.  The appellant presented no evidence of comparable sales in the area to support her position. 
 
	Based on the evidence presented, the Board found and ruled that the appellant did not meet her burden of establishing overvaluation of the subject property for the fiscal year 2007. The Board also found and ruled that the assessors credibly supported the assessment of the subject property.  
	Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee. 
    
APPELLATE TAX BOARD

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




A true copy,

Attest: _______________________________
		   Clerk of the Board

  On June 4, 2007, within 30 days of service of the informal Petition, the assessors elected to transfer the Petition to the formal docket.

ATB 2008-967