Marilyn P. Riley v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Lynnfield (August 3, 2010)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



MARILYN P. RILEY		  v.		  BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF								  THE TOWN OF LYNNFIELD

Docket No. F300691				  Promulgated:
							  August 3, 2010
						
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 taxes on certain real estate located in the Town of Lynnfield, owned by and assessed to the appellant under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2009.  
	Commissioner Mulhern heard the 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.
	
Marilyn P. and Richard Riley, pro se, for the appellant.

Beverly Hanson, Assessor, for the appellee.


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On the basis of the exhibits and testimony offered into evidence during the hearing of this appeal, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.  
In November 2007, Marilyn P. Riley ("appellant") entered into a contract to purchase a condominium located at 900 Lynnfield Street, Unit #1, in Lynnfield ("subject property").  The appellant purchased the subject property on February 1, 2008 for $649,900.  For fiscal year 2009, the Board of Assessors of Lynnfield ("assessors") valued the subject property at $616,300 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $11.22 per thousand, in the total amount of $7,278.51.  The tax was timely paid without incurring interest.  On January 30, 2009, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellant timely applied for abatement in writing to the appellee.  The assessors denied the appellant's abatement application on February 11, 2009.  The appellant seasonably filed an appeal with the Board,
which was postmarked May 11, 2009.  On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide the present appeal.
The subject property is a two-story, end-unit townhouse constructed in 2006 and located in Heritage Woods, an adult community.  The subject property contains 1,969 square feet of living space with six rooms, including two bedrooms, and also two full bathrooms and one half bathroom.  Other amenities include a 1,100 square-foot finished basement, a wood deck, a two-car attached garage, and central air conditioning.  The property record card on file with the assessors lists the subject property as being in "B+" condition.  
The appellant and her husband, Richard Riley, live in the subject property.  Mr. Riley testified that at the start of development Heritage Woods was advertised as an "over 60" community.  Recently, however, the developer lowered the age of residency to 55, which, according to Mr. Riley, negatively impacted the value of the subject property.  Mr. Riley did not, however, offer any evidence to support his claim.  Mr. Riley also argued that since the residents of Heritage Woods pay for their own street plowing and trash collection, and have no children in the public school system, the subject property should have been assessed at a lower value.  
Beverly Hanson, Lynnfield's Assessor and a certified real estate appraiser, testified on behalf of the appellee.  Ms. Hanson offered a comparable-sales analysis of three condominium units which sold during 2007.  The comparable properties were all end-unit townhouses located within the same condominium complex, with the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms and nearly identical finished living areas as the subject property.  All three properties sold for the same amount as the subject property, $649,900.
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found that the appellant did not provide credible evidence to support her assertion that the subject property was overvalued.  The appellant relied solely on an unquantified claim that the subject property was negatively impacted by the reduced age requirement for townhouse purchasers.  The appellant did not offer any affirmative evidence of value such as comparable sales or assessments.  In contrast, the assessors offered into evidence a comparable-sales analysis which, together with the sale price which the appellant paid for the subject property just one month after the relevant assessment date, supports their assessment.  Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the appellant did not meet her burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2009 and issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.

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 and 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 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 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 Co., 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).  
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 the testimony of Mr. Riley that the lowered age of residency from 60 to 55 negatively impacted the fair market value of the subject property.  The appellant further argued that because residents of Heritage Woods pay for their own plowing and trash collection, and because property owners have no children in the public school system, the subject property was overvalued.  The appellant did not, however, offer any supporting valuation or other evidence. 
Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the appellant failed to meet her burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2009 and issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.

					 APPELLATE TAX BOARD
  					


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


A true copy,

Attest: ____________________________
	       Clerk of the Board

 The appellant and her husband, Richard Riley, appeared at the hearing.  Mr. Riley presented the case and testified on behalf of the appellant.
 Although the appellant did not own the subject property on January 1, 2008, she is deemed to be a "person upon whom a tax has been assessed" and, therefore, has standing to appeal the subject assessment. G.L. c. 59, § 59 ("a person who acquires title to real estate after January first in any year, shall for the purposes of this section be treated as a person upon whom a tax has been assessed.") 
 Where as here, the Board receives a petition after the three-month due date, the date of postmark is deemed to be the date of filing. See G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G. L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65. Accordingly, the filing date of the petition is deemed to be May 11, 2009, and the appellant's appeal is timely.

ATB 2010-717