McMullen, Sarah E. & Corner, Mark D. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Worthington (September 17, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
MARK D. CORNER & 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
SARAH E. MCMULLEN 	THE TOWN OF WORTHINGTON
Docket No. F348840 	Promulgated:
September 17, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	originally 	filed 	under 	the 	informal
procedure1 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
Worthington 	(“assessors” 	or 	“appellee”) 	to 	abate 	a 	tax 	on 	real
property 	located 	at 	163 	Huntington 	Road 	(“subject 	property”),
owned 	by 	Mark 	D. 	Corner 	and 	Sarah 	E. 	McMullen 	(“appellants”) 	for
fiscal year 2023 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Elliott 	heard 	the 	appeal. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco
and 	Commissioners 	Good, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	him 	in 	the
decision for the appellants.
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.
Mark 	D. 	Corner 	& 	Sarah 	E. 	McMullen, 	pro 	se, 	for 	the
appellants.
Dick 	Wagner, 	Jean 	Boudreau, 	and 	Gary 	Ouimet, 	assessors, 	for
the appellee.
1 Within thirty days of service of the Statement Under Informal Procedure, the
assessors elected to transfer the proceedings to the formal docket. See G.L. c.
58A, § 7A.
ATB 2025-278

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	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
As of the relevant valuation date of January 1, 2022, for the
fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at
$1,022,800 	and 	assessed 	a 	tax 	thereon 	at 	the 	rate 	of 	$14.91 	per
$1,000, in the amount of $15,249.95. The appellants purchased the
subject 	property 	for 	$850,000 	on 	January 	31, 	2022, 	after 	the
relevant date of valuation. Consequently, pursuant to G.L. c. 60,
§ 	3, 	the 	owner 	as 	of 	January 	1, 	2022 	was 	listed 	on 	the 	tax 	bill.
However, 	because 	the 	appellants 	acquired 	title 	to 	the 	subject
property 	after 	January 	1, 	2022, 	they 	are 	treated 	as 	the 	persons
“upon 	whom 	a 	tax 	has 	been 	assessed” 	for 	purposes 	of 	pursuing 	an
abatement 	under 	G.L. 	c. 	59, 	§ 	59. 	The 	appellants 	timely 	paid 	the
tax due without incurring interest.
The 	appellants 	timely 	filed 	an 	abatement 	application 	on
January 	9, 	2023, 	which 	was 	denied 	by 	the 	assessors 	on 	April 	4,
2023. On May 1, 2023, the appellants timely filed their Statement
Under 	Informal 	Procedure. 	Based 	on 	these 	facts, 	the 	Board 	found
and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
During 	relevant 	time 	period, 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	a
Colonial-style, 	single-family 	dwelling 	situated 	on 	a 	13.10-acre
ATB 2025-279

lot. The subject property had a gross living area of 4,726 square
feet, 	with 	seven 	bedrooms, 	four 	bathrooms, 	a 	three-quarters
bathroom, a garage, a patio, and a gazebo, amongst other features.
The 	assessors 	later 	made 	adjustments 	to 	certain 	features 	after 	a
visit to the subject property, as detailed further below.
II. The parties’ contentions
A. The appellants’ case
The 	appellants 	primarily 	maintained 	that 	their 	purchase 	of
the 	subject 	property 	for 	$850,000 	on 	January 	31, 	2022, 	was 	the
best 	indication 	of 	fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue.
The appellants explained that the subject property had been on the
market 	for 	several 	years, 	starting 	at 	$1.3 	million, 	and 	then
lowered eventually to $920,000, at which point they put in an offer
and 	ultimately 	settled 	on 	the 	purchase 	price 	of 	$850,000. 	They
noted 	that 	this 	was 	not 	a 	quick 	sale 	and 	that 	they 	had 	no
relationship to the seller.
While still maintaining that the purchase price should be the
fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue, the appellants also
provided 	several 	documents 	in 	support 	of 	a 	lower 	value 	than 	the
assessed 	value. 	The 	preparers 	of 	two 	of 	the 	documents 	– 	an
appraisal 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	prepared 	for 	a 	bank 	and 	a
consultant 	report 	prepared 	for 	the 	appellants 	– 	were 	not 	present
and available for cross-examination. Consequently, the Board found
ATB 2025-280

these 	two 	documents 	to 	be 	unsubstantiated 	hearsay 	and 	did 	not
accept any of the opinions of value offered in the documents.
A 	third 	document 	offered 	by 	the 	appellants 	was 	an 	appraisal
report 	prepared 	for 	the 	appellants 	by 	Daniel 	J. 	Gleason, 	a
Massachusetts certified general real estate appraiser. His report
detailed a sales-comparison approach using three comparable sales
and correlative adjustments. Mr. Gleason was present at the hearing
and 	testified 	briefly 	as 	to 	how 	he 	derived 	his 	fair 	cash 	value
opinion 	of 	$868,000 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year
at issue.
B. The assessors’ case
The 	assessors 	entered 	jurisdictional 	documents 	into 	the
record and chiefly based their case on testimony and correspondence
with 	the 	appellants 	in 	which 	they 	pointed 	out 	their 	reasons 	for
not 	accepting 	the 	sale 	price 	as 	the 	appropriate 	fair 	cash 	value
for the subject property. The assessors contended that the sale of
the 	subject 	property 	occurred 	outside 	the 	time 	period 	for 	fiscal
year 	2023 	sales 	and 	that 	the 	assessed 	value 	generated 	by 	their
computer-assisted mass appraisal model was the appropriate value.
The 	assessors 	alleged 	that 	the 	appellants 	“got 	a 	good 	deal”
because 	the 	homeowner 	was 	building 	another 	property 	and 	having
trouble 	selling 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	that 	if 	the 	subject
property remained on the market longer it could have sold for more.
But 	on 	questioning 	by 	the 	appellants, 	the 	assessors 	acknowledged
ATB 2025-281

that 	the 	subject 	property 	had 	already 	been 	on 	the 	market 	for 	a
number 	of 	years 	and 	that 	they 	had 	no 	written 	statement 	from 	the
prior 	owner 	to 	substantiate 	their 	suggestion 	that 	the 	appellants
“got a good deal.”
Additionally, the assessors claimed that the subject property
was valued even higher than as originally assessed. Subsequent to
the 	appellants’ 	filing 	of 	their 	abatement 	application, 	the
assessors 	conducted 	a 	visit 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	made
various 	changes 	to 	the 	subject 	property’s 	property 	record 	card.
Based upon this visit, the assessors determined that the assessed
value should have been increased by $17,500 for the fiscal year at
issue.2
The 	assessors 	also 	critiqued 	the 	bank 	appraisal 	and
consultant 	report, 	but 	the 	Board’s 	finding 	that 	these 	documents
were unsubstantiated hearsay rendered this critique moot.
III. The Board’s findings
Based 	on 	the 	above 	and 	all 	the 	evidence 	of 	record, 	and 	as
discussed 	further 	in 	the 	Opinion 	below, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the
2 The assessors noted in correspondence to the appellants that they would not
bill for the increase, nor could they have since they did not attempt to revise
the assessed value under G.L. c. 59, § 76. The increase in value determined by
the 	assessors 	was 	based 	upon 	their 	following 	changes: 	reduction 	of 	overall
physical condition from very good to good; changing the basement condition to
unfinished; 	reducing 	the 	number 	of 	bedrooms 	from 	six 	to 	five; 	addition 	of
another full bathroom; addition of a half bathroom; addition of a small run-in
shed; addition of lean-to (part of chicken coop) to garage/barn; and addition
of stone patio.
ATB 2025-282

purchase price of the subject property by the appellants on January
31, 	2022, 	was 	the 	best 	evidence 	of 	its 	fair 	cash 	value 	as 	of 	the
relevant date of valuation. The Board found that there was adequate
market 	exposure 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	that 	the 	sale 	was
conducted 	at 	arm’s 	length. 	The 	Board 	was 	not 	persuaded 	by 	the
appellee’s 	objections 	and 	found 	the 	sale 	- 	within 	a 	few 	weeks 	of
the relevant valuation date - to be reasonably proximate in time.
Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellants
and granted an abatement in the amount of $2,576.45, based upon a
fair cash value of $850,000.
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).
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
ATB 2025-283

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)). 	The 	Board
consistently has found that the sale price of the subject property,
proximate 	in 	time 	to 	the 	relevant 	date 	of 	valuation, 	is 	the 	best
evidence 	of 	fair 	cash 	value. 	See 	Rigopoulos 	v. 	Assessors 	of
Leominster, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2005-675, 	679
(“[T]he 	Board 	found 	that 	the 	sale 	price 	was 	the 	best 	evidence 	of
the 	subject 	property’s 	fair 	market 	value 	as 	of 	the 	date 	of
assessment.”); 	Marco 	Investments, 	LLC 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Wellfleet,
Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2025-55, 	60 	(“We 	have
observed 	in 	the 	past 	that 	‘[a]ctual 	sales are . 	. 	. very 	strong
evidence of fair market value, for they represent what a buyer has
been 	willing 	to 	pay 	to 	a 	seller for 	a 	particular 	property.’”)
(citing New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass.
456, 469 (1981)).
ATB 2025-284

In 	the 	present 	appeal, 	the 	purchase 	of 	the 	subject 	property
by the appellants occurred thirty days after the relevant date of
valuation. 	There 	was 	no 	evidence 	in 	the 	record 	that 	the 	sale 	was
anything 	other 	than 	an 	arm’s-length 	transaction 	concerning
property that had been on the market for several years. See Hiser
v. 	Assessors 	of 	Dalton, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports
2018-486, 	491 	(finding 	that 	“the 	purchase 	price 	of 	the 	subject
property, 	paid 	within 	a 	month 	of 	the 	relevant 	valuation 	date 	and
after it had been exposed to the market for 286 days, was the best
evidence of value in this appeal” and that “there was no indication
that the sale was other than an arm's-length sale”).
Further, 	the 	Board 	has 	not 	limited 	its 	consideration 	of
proximate 	sales 	to 	those 	only 	occurring 	prior 	to 	the 	date 	of
valuation. 	See 	Aditya 	Dharapuram 	Krishnamoorthy, 	Shruti 	Iyer 	v.
Assessors 	of 	Stow, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2025-
188, 	198. 	See 	also 	Raymond 	F. 	Sidor, 	Trustee 	Corinthian 	R.T. 	v.
Assessors of Taunton, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2025-
129, 137; Kwan v. Assessors of Boston, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact
and 	Reports 	2024-52, 	55, 	57; 	Marko 	Labudovic 	& 	Natasa 	Vucetic 	v.
Assessors of Belmont, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2022-
9, 	11-12; 	Smyth 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Uxbridge, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of
Fact and Reports 2011-257, 262.
On this basis, the Board found and ruled that the purchase of
the subject property for $850,000 by the appellants on January 31,
ATB 2025-285

~
2022, 	in 	an 	arm’s-length 	transaction, 	was 	the 	best 	indication 	of
fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	Accordingly, 	the
Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellants 	met 	their 	burden 	of
proving 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	overvalued 	for 	the 	fiscal
year 	at 	issue. 	The 	Board, 	therefore, 	decided 	this 	appeal 	for 	the
appellants and granted an abatement in the amount of $2,576.45.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ______________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: _________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-286