Gericke, Arne & Gloria v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Shrewsbury (June 5, 2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
ARNE & GLORIA GERICKE 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF SHREWSBURY
Docket No. F351242
Promulgated:
June 5, 2026
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 Board of Assessors of the Town of
Shrewsbury (“assessors” or “appellee”) to abate a tax on real estate owned by and
assessed to Arne and Gloria Gericke (“appellants”) for fiscal year 2024 (“fiscal year at
issue”).
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.
Arne and Gloria Gericke, pro se, for the appellants.
Ruth Anderson, Assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2026-195

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing of this appeal, the
Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
I. Introduction and jurisdiction
On January 1, 2023, the appellants were the owners of a 3,483-square-foot,
Colonial-style home (“subject home”) situated on a 22,646-square-foot parcel at 7
Morningside Drive in Shrewsbury (together, “subject property”). The subject home was
built in 2012 and has ten rooms, including four bedrooms, three bathrooms, and two half
bathrooms. It also features a finished basement, a fireplace, a covered front entrance, a
patio, a two-car attached garage, and central air conditioning. Additionally, there is a shed
on the subject property. The grade was listed as Aa on the subject property’s property
record card for the fiscal year at issue. The appellants acquired the subject property for
$875,910 in July 2012.
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at
$1,291,300 and assessed a tax thereon at the rate of $12.38 per thousand, in the amount
of $15,986.29, exclusive of the Community Preservation Act surcharge. The tax due was
timely paid without incurring interest. On January 30, 2024, the appellants timely filed an
abatement application with the assessors, which was denied by the assessors on March
1, 2024. The appellants timely filed this appeal with the Board on May 23, 2024. Based
on these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this
appeal.
II. The appellants’ case
In addition to their own testimony, the appellants introduced several documents to
illustrate their claim that the assessors overvalued the subject property.
ATB 2026-196

The appellants testified that except for three other properties on the same street
that were all built at the same time, the subject home has the highest value per square
foot at $372 versus an average of $358 for the other properties that they offered. The
appellants also noted that the subject property’s assessment increase from fiscal year
2023 to the fiscal year at issue seemed to be high compared to these other properties.
The appellants further testified that they were the first to contract and commit to
building in the neighborhood, and the developers allowed them options for lower-cost
amenities. They alleged that the subject home is of inferior quality and condition to other
properties built in the neighborhood, noting features such as cathedral ceilings, hot tubs,
and hardwood floors that the subject property lacks.
The appellants provided links to Zillow listings for various Shrewsbury properties
that they considered to be comparable sales. They also provided tax assessment
information for the subject property from fiscal year 2012 through the fiscal year at issue,
with percentage increases, and tax assessments for other properties on Morningside
Drive. The appellants made no adjustments to account for differences between the
subject property and their comparable sales and assessments properties.
The appellants also noted the condition of the subject property, particularly kitchen
granite stains, mildew damage, a drafty fireplace, water damage, garage issues, and
plumbing issues, along with accompanying photographs. They estimated that repairs
would cost upwards of $30,000 to $40,000, but admitted these figures were not based
upon actual estimates from a contractor.
The appellants offered an opinion of value for the subject property between
$1,000,000 to $1,100,000 for the fiscal year at issue.
ATB 2026-197

III. The appellee’s case
The appellee presented jurisdictional documents, posed several questions to the
appellants, and otherwise rested on the presumed validity of the assessment.
IV. The Board’s findings
Based upon the record in its entirety, and as discussed further in the Opinion below,
the Board found that the appellants failed to establish that the fair cash value of the
subject property was less than the assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.
The Zillow links to allegedly comparable sales and a spreadsheet with allegedly
comparable assessments lacked critical adjustments to account for differences between
those properties and the subject property. Testimony and photographs concerning the
condition of the subject property, as well as testimony concerning the inferior amenities
of the subject property compared to neighboring properties, failed to establish any
correlation with a reduction in fair cash value for the subject property for the fiscal year at
issue. Likewise, the appellants’ speculative assertions of cost for repairs provided no
useful information from which the Board could determine a reduction in value of the
subject property as a whole.
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 on which a willing seller and a willing buyer will
agree if both are fully informed and under no compulsion. Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors
of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
ATB 2026-198

A taxpayer has the burden of proving that the property at issue 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 the 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)). Here, the appellants provided no evidence of flaws or errors
in the assessors’ method of valuation and failed to present affirmative evidence of
overvaluation. See Fox v. Assessors of Longmeadow, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and
Reports 2021-479, 483 (finding that evidence “of any quantifiable impact on the subject
property’s fair cash value was critically lacking”).
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 fair
cash value of the property at issue. Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB
Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 400, aff'd, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008) (Rule
1:28 decision). Similarly, the fair cash value of property may be determined by evidence
of assessed values of comparable properties. See G.L. c. 58A, § 12B (“At any hearing
ATB 2026-199

relative to the assessed fair cash valuation . . . of property, evidence as to the fair cash
valuation . . . at which assessors have assessed other property of a comparable nature .
. . shall be admissible.”). The introduction of such evidence may provide adequate support
for the granting of an abatement. See 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, and Swartz v.
Assessors of Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1993-271, 279-80);
Sterling v. Assessors of Arlington, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2021-76,
93-4 (finding that the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that comparable
assessment properties share fundamental similarities with the subject property).
The Board considered the information and purportedly comparable properties
submitted by the appellants but found that this evidence was not useful for determining
the fair cash value of the subject property. See North American Philips Lighting Corp.
v. Assessors of Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 297-299 (1984). Critically, the appellants failed to
account for any differences between their comparable properties and the subject property.
“Adjustments must be made to . . . sales data to account for differences between the
subject property and the properties offered for comparison.” Doherty v. Assessors of
Lee, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2013-174, 181 (citing Lareau v. Assessors
of Norwell, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2010-879, 889-90). See also
Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports at
2007-402 (“The assessments in a comparable assessment analysis, like the sale prices
in a comparable sales analysis, must . . . be adjusted to account for differences with the
subject.”).
ATB 2026-200

rYbJ)
Additionally, the appellants provided no probative evidence as to the effect on
value of alleged inferior amenities of the subject property. Similarly, speculative costs for
repairs offered no insight on the overall value of the subject property. See, e.g., Abuzahra
v. Assessors of Rowley, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-1514, 1522
(finding that taxpayers failed to meet their burden of proving overvaluation “because
they failed to quantify the effects of wetlands or topographical issues on the value of their
lots”); Durgin and Chojnacki-Durgin v. Assessors of Dudley, Mass. ATB Findings of
Fact and Reports 2021-469, 477 (“The appellants relied upon speculation, unadjusted
sales comparisons, and hearsay.”).
Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the appellants failed to sustain their
burden of proving that the fair cash value of the subject property was lower than its
assessed value for the fiscal year at issue and issued a decision in favor of the appellee.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ___________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-201