Maura A. Lareau & Gregory J. Lareau v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Norwell (March 7, 2012)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


MAURA A. LAREAU &    	  v.	      BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
GREGORY J. LAREAU				 THE TOWN OF NORWELL

Docket No. F307826 				 Promulgated:
							 March 7, 2012 


	This is an appeal under the formal procedure, pursuant to G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the Town of Norwell ("appellee" or "assessors") to abate taxes on certain real estate in Norwell, owned by and assessed to Maura A. Lareau and Gregory J. Lareau ("appellants") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2010.  
	Commissioner Scharaffa heard this appeal and was joined in the decision for the appellants by Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Rose and Chmielinski.  
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellants under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.  


	Maura A. Lareau, pro se, for the appellants.

	Barbara Gingras, assistant assessor, for the appellee.


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On January 1, 2009, the appellants were the assessed owners of a parcel of real estate located at 35 Stony Brook Lane in Norwell ("subject property").  The parcel contained approximately 6.57 acres of land and was improved with a single-family residence containing 2,906 square feet of living area, as well as a storage shed.  For fiscal year 2010, the assessors valued the subject property at $1,095,700 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $12.75 per thousand, in the total amount of $14,351.04, which the appellants timely paid without incurring interest. On January 27, 2010, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellants timely filed an abatement application with the assessors.  On April 4, 2010, the assessors denied the appellants' abatement request.  The appellants seasonably filed an appeal with the Board on June 22, 2010.  On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction over the instant appeal.
At the hearing of this appeal, Maura Lareau testified on behalf of the appellants.  She contended that their property was overvalued because the assessors had placed too high a value on both the land and building portions of their assessment.  Ms. Lareau introduced a prepared statement that detailed her contentions concerning the subject property's value, together with charts to compare the relevant features of the subject property with those of purportedly comparable properties, as well as the property record cards for those properties.  Ms. Lareau's opinion of the subject property's fair market value, according to the abatement application that she submitted to the assessors, was $720,640.  The assessors introduced the requisite jurisdictional documents and a comparable-sales analysis comparing the subject property with three purportedly comparable properties, together with the property record cards.
The subject property was located on Stony Brook Lane, a one-lane dirt private way.  Stony Brook Lane ran through the subject property and provided access to eight properties, including the subject property.  As a private way, it was maintained at the owners' expense.  Four of the properties on Stony Brook Lane had river frontage and direct river access with docks or piers and the other four, including the subject property, did not.
The subject property was a 6.57-acre parcel comprised of a one-acre main site plus 5.57 acres of excess land, which was marshland and under conservation restrictions.  The subject property had frontage only along a segment of Stony Brook that flowed into the North River and which ran dry during low tide.  Ms. Lareau claimed that a neighboring property obstructed their view of the North River.  The subject property also did not have a dock or pier.  The assessors valued the subject property's main site at $640,300, its excess acreage at $44,200, the subject residence at $398,100, and outbuilding, yard and extra building items at $13,100, for a total assessment of $1,095,700 for the fiscal year at issue.
The subject residence, built in 1979, was a "conventional"-style, two-story, single-family home.  The assessors' property record card for the subject property reported that it contained 2,906 square feet of living space with six rooms, including three bedrooms, as well as two full modern-styled bathrooms, one of which had a whirlpool tub, and one half bathroom.  The residence featured what the assessors classified as an "above-average" kitchen, an open-concept main living area with a cathedral ceiling and fireplace, plus two additional fireplaces.  The residence's interior walls were primarily painted sheetrock, and the floors were hardwood.  The residence had an oil-fired, forced hot water heating system, and it was equipped with central air conditioning.  
The exterior of the residence had wood clapboard and shingle siding, and the roof had asphalt shingles.  A 912-square-foot garage was attached to the house as part of the first floor.  The house also had a 568-square-foot deck, a 768-square-foot unfinished attic, and a 1,152-square-foot crawl space under one-third of the house, accessible only from the outside.  In 2001, the appellants completed an approximately $300,000 renovation and addition.  The assessors rated the residence as in "excellent" overall condition.  In addition to the residence, a storage shed was located on the subject property.  
Ms. Lareau contended that the total assessed value of the subject property, including both the land and the building components, exceeded the fair market value of the subject property.  First, she claimed that the scarcity and desirability of riverfront properties in Norwell, particularly those with a pier or dock, should have yielded fair market values for those properties that greatly exceeded the fair market value of the subject property, which lacked those attributes.  However, in Ms. Lareau's opinion, the subject property's land component was being assessed as if it had those attributes.  
To support her contention, Ms. Lareau submitted several charts, with accompanying property record cards, comparing the assessed land value per square foot of the primary lot for the subject property and neighboring properties in Norwell.  One chart compared five riverfront properties in Norwell, including three nearby riverfront properties:  80 Old Meeting House Lane; 82 Old Meeting House Lane; and 89 King's Landing.  According to this chart, the subject property's primary lot assessment of $2.39 per square foot exceeded the per-square-foot values of all three of these neighboring comparable properties, and was nearly identical to the $2.38-per-square-foot assessment of the primary lot assessment for 116 Old Meeting House Lane, a property with both river frontage and river access by means of a private pier.  
A second chart compared the assessed land value per square foot of the subject property with a nearby purportedly comparable property, 124 Old Meeting House Lane, which like the subject was one property removed from the North River and thus had a similar proximity to the river.  However, unlike the subject property, 124 Old Meeting House Lane had access to the river via a deeded easement.  According to this chart, the subject property's 286,189 square feet (6.57 acres) of land -- 242,629 square feet (5.57 acres) of which was marsh land and under conservation restriction - was being assessed at $640,300 while the 387,284 square feet (8.89 acres) of land at 124 Old Meeting House Lane was being assessed much lower at $335,700, despite the fact that that property had deeded access rights to the North River.  
Three other charts comparing purportedly comparable properties with each other demonstrated that the primary lots' per-square-foot assessments for properties with river frontage and river access -- a pier or dock or deeded rights -- were higher than primary-lot assessments for those properties that lacked such frontage and access.  Another chart comparing 89 King's Landing, another nearby riverfront property, with the subject property revealed that that property's land assessment of $665,900 for 8.5 acres of land was considerably lower than the subject's property's assessment of $684,500 for 6.57 acres of land, 5.57 acres of which were marshland and under conservation restrictions.
Next, Ms. Lareau challenged the building portion of the subject assessment.  In particular, she challenged the assessors' rating of the subject home as in "excellent" condition, explaining that even though the subject home had been renovated in 2001, the appliances were from Sears department store, the bathroom vanities and cabinets were not real wood, and that the home had been "subject to normal wear and tear" since the 2001 renovation from the appellants living in the subject home year round, together at all times with "at least one 80 pound dog."  She also challenged the subject-kitchen's "above average" rating by the assessors.  She characterized the kitchen as "average," because it had an "off the rack" stock Formica countertop and did not include custom cabinetry or stainless steel appliances.    
Ms. Lareau submitted a chart comparing the assessed value per square foot of the subject home with four other neighboring homes along North River, each of which was a riverfront property.  According to this chart, the subject home had the highest assessed value per square foot compared to each of the neighboring riverfront properties.  Ms. Lareau also submitted numerous photos of the interior of 64 Stony Brook Lane, supposedly in "good" condition according to the assessors, to demonstrate that this neighboring home was far superior to its "good" rating and to the subject home.  Accordingly, Ms. Lareau concluded, the subject home, which was rated as "excellent" on its property record card, was being assessed at a premium compared with its neighboring homes. 
Barbara Gingras, the assistant assessor, testified in defense of the subject assessment.  In addition to the requisite jurisdictional documents, Ms. Gingras presented a comparable-sales analysis using three purportedly comparable properties located in Norwell that did not have a riverfront location, river access or an unobstructed river view:  35 Harbor Lane; 160 Riverside Drive; and 197 Riverside Drive.  The sale dates ranged from January 25, 2008 through October 28, 2008, the land areas ranged from 1.01 acres to 1.56 acres, the square foot living areas ranged from 2,838 square feet to 3,240 square feet, and each of the comparable homes were rated "Good +10" according to the assessors' records.  None of these purportedly comparable properties was located in the same neighborhood as the subject property.  After adjustments, Ms. Gingras' comparables yielded adjusted-sale prices ranging from $1,128,900 to $1,141,000.  However, her net adjustments to these purportedly comparable properties -- for factors including time of sale, condition of home, and condition of land -- ranged from $255,000 to $356,000.  Most notable were Ms. Gingras' adjustments to land -- ranging from $298,200 to $303,200 -- which she claimed accounted for the subject property's "view."
On the basis of the evidence presented in this appeal, the Board found that Ms. Lareau sufficiently demonstrated, through her comparable-assessment analysis, that the subject property -- which lacked a riverfront location, riverfront access, and an unobstructed river view -- was being assessed comparably with properties in her vicinity that did have these coveted features and were, therefore, superior to the subject property.    
Moreover, Ms. Lareau demonstrated that the subject residence was also being assessed at a premium.  The assessors classified the subject residence as in "excellent" condition, despite the fact that the residence lacked many high-end features like custom cabinetry and commercial-grade, stainless steel appliances and was inferior to 64 Stony Brook Lane's residence, which the assessors rated as "good."  The Board found that Ms. Lareau proved that the subject property's assessment exceeded its fair market value. 
Ms. Gingras' comparable-sales analysis, however, used properties which were not located in the subject property's neighborhood and which required adjustments in excess of $255,000.  These adjustments translated into a range of 29% to 45% of the comparables' sales prices, thus demonstrating the properties' lack of comparability to the subject property.  The Board thus found that Ms. Gingras' evidence was not as persuasive as the appellants' and therefore failed to support the subject assessment.  
The Board found and ruled that the appellants met their burden of proving that the subject assessment as a whole, including both the land and the building components, exceeded the fair market value of the subject property.  Based on the evidence presented, the Board found a fair market value of $900,000 for the subject property, which was $195,000 less than its assessed value of $1,095,000.  Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellant and granted an abatement of $2,570.04.  

OPINION
"All property, real and personal, situated within the commonwealth . . . shall be subject to taxation." G.L. c. 59, § 2.  The assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value determined as of the first day of January of each year.  G.L. c. 59, §§ 2A, 38.  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer in a free and open market will agree if both of them are fully informed and under no compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).  
	The appellant has the burden of proving that the subject property has a lower fair market value than the value 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 taxpayers . . . prov[e] 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, 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, 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).  General Laws c. 58A, § 12B further provides that "at any hearing relative to the assessed fair cash valuation or classification of property, evidence as to fair cash valuation or classification of property at which assessors have assessed other property of a comparable nature or class shall be admissible."  Chouinard v. Assessors of Natick, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-299, 307-308 (citing Garvey v. Assessors of West Newbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1995-129, 135-36; Swartz v. Assessors of Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1993-271, 279-80).  "The introduction of ample and substantial evidence in this regard may provide adequate support for . . . abatement."  Id.  
	In the present appeal, the appellants offered affirmative evidence, including photographs and property record cards, and compiled a comparable-assessment analysis which exposed the flaws of, and thus undermined, the assessors' valuation.  Particularly, the Board found that the appellants' comparable-assessment analysis, which utilized properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, sufficiently demonstrated that the subject property was being assessed comparably with superior properties in the neighborhood that were located on the river, had riverfront access, and had an unobstructed river view, coveted features which the subject property lacked.  The appellants also offered evidence to demonstrate that the subject property's 286,189 square feet of land was being assessed at $640,300, while the 387,284 square feet of land at 124 Old Meeting House Lane -- a nearby comparable property that was similarly situated as the subject property -- was being assessed at $335,700, despite the fact that this comparable property had deeded access rights to the North River, which the subject property lacked.  
Moreover, the appellants offered evidence to discredit the appellee's rating of the subject residence as in "excellent" condition, despite the fact that the residence had not been renovated since 2001 and lacked many high-end features such as custom cabinetry and commercial-grade, stainless steel appliances.  
To support the subject assessment, the assessors offered a comparable-sales analysis utilizing purportedly comparable properties which were not located in the subject's neighborhood and which required adjustments between 29% and 45% of their sales prices, thus demonstrating their lack of comparability with the subject property.  
On the basis of the evidence, the Board found and ruled that the appellants met their burden of proving a fair market value lower than the value assessed by the appellee for the fiscal year at issue.  The Board accordingly found and ruled that the fair market value of the subject property for the fiscal year at issue was $900,000, a value that reflected its fair cash value as compared with its surrounding properties, particularly the properties with premium riverfront locations, riverfront access, and unobstructed river views.
The Board need not specify the exact manner in which it arrived at its valuation.  Jordan Marsh v. Assessors of Malden, 359 Mass. 196, 110 (1971).  The fair cash value of property cannot be proven with "mathematical certainty and must ultimately rest in the realm of opinion, estimate and judgment."  Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941).  "The credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for the [B]oard."   Cummington School of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977).
Based on the evidence presented, the Board found and ruled that the appellants met their burden of proving that the subject property's assessment was excessive.  After considering the evidence of comparable assessments, the Board found that the subject property was being assessed comparably with riverfront properties.  Because the subject property was not a riverfront property and did not have river access or an unobstructed river view, and because the subject home was not in "excellent" condition, as reported by the assessors, the Board found and ruled that the subject property's assessed value was excessive.  The Board therefore found and ruled that the subject property's fair market value was $900,000 for the fiscal year at issue.  
Accordingly, the Board decided this appeal for the appellants and granted an abatement in the amount of $2,570.04.
					THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD


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


A true copy,

Attest: ____________________________
	   Clerk of the Board

 This amount includes a Community Preservation Act ("CPA") surcharge of $380.86.
  While the appellants also cited "disproportion" in their Petition, they essentially argued only overvaluation.  Their evidence did not come close to establishing a widespread intentional scheme of disproportionate assessment perpetrated by the assessors.  See Brown v. Assessors of Brookline, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 327, 332 (1997) and the discussion of disproportionate assessment in the following Opinion section of these findings.  
 The appellants describe the subject residence as being about 2/3 Cape style and about 1/3 two-story Colonial style.
 The appellants dispute this measurement, claiming that the subject residence actually contained 2,896 square feet of living space.
 Chart 2 compared the subject property with 124 Old Meeting House Lane; Chart 2a compared the subject property with 64 Stony Brook Lane; Chart 2b compared 124 Old Meeting House Lane with 116 Old Meeting House Lane; and Chart 3 compared 89 King's Landing with 124 Old Meeting House Lane. 
  This abatement includes the CPA surcharge.

ATB 2012-403