Gary Thompson v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Plympton (September 28, 2016)

  				COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

					APPELLATE TAX BOARD
	


GARY THOMPSON		             v. 	   BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
								   THE TOWN OF PLYMPTON

Docket No. F322609					   Promulgated:
								   September 28, 2016


	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 Plympton ("appellee" or "assessors") to abate a tax on certain real estate located in Plympton owned by and assessed to Gary Thompson ("appellant") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2014 ("fiscal year at issue").
	Commissioner Rose ("Presiding Commissioner") heard this appeal under G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.20 and issued a single-member decision for the appellant. 
	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.

	Gary Thompson, pro se, for the appellant. 
	
Deborah M. Stuart, Principal Assessor, for the appellee. 



 FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT

	On the basis of testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2013, the valuation and assessment date for the fiscal year at issue, the appellant was the assessed owner of a 7.43-acre parcel of land improved with a single-family residence located at 120 West Street in the Town of Plympton ("subject property").  For assessment purposes, the subject property is identified as "Map ID 16/2/1/A."
The subject property is improved with a two-and-a-half story, Colonial-style home ("subject dwelling").  Built in 2006, the 2,759-square-foot subject dwelling has a total of nine rooms, including five bedrooms, as well as three full bathrooms and one half bathroom.  Additional amenities include a 196-square-foot open "farmer's porch," a 668-square-foot wooden deck, a two-car attached garage, an above-ground pool, and central air conditioning.  The exterior of the subject dwelling is vinyl siding with an asphalt-shingled gable roof.  The subject dwelling was listed on its property record card as being in good condition by the assessors.        
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at $480,800 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $16.97 per $1,000, in the total amount of $8,159.18, plus a Community Preservation Act ("CPA") surcharge in the amount of $96.93.  The appellant timely paid the tax assessed and, on November 7, 2013, he timely filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors.  On February 3, 2014, the assessors voted to reduce the valuation of the subject property to $462,900, and granted an abatement of $308.33, including the appropriate portion of the CPA surcharge.  Not satisfied with this abatement, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the appellant timely filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") on May 5, 2014.   On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
Mr. Thompson testified that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue due to the subject property's location on a dirt road and its lack of a paved driveway.  In support of his claim, the appellant offered into evidence the property record cards for five purportedly comparable-sale properties located in Plympton that he deemed comparable to the subject property: 106 Maple Street, 16 Trout Farm Lane, 65 Cedar Street, 23 Rebecca Way, and 17 Brentwood Drive.  These properties ranged in size from 1.41 acres to 12.53 acres with finished living areas that ranged from 2,504 square feet to 3,000 square feet and sold between October 13, 2011 and February 15, 2013 with sale prices that ranged from $330,000 to $442,500.  
Although there were numerous differences between the subject property and the appellant's purportedly comparable properties, the appellant did not make any adjustments to the purportedly comparable properties' sale prices to compensate for those differences.  On the basis of his purportedly comparable sale properties, the appellant submitted that the subject property's fair market value was $378,544 for the fiscal year at issue.  
The assessors presented their case-in-chief through the testimony of Deborah Stuart, the Principal Assessor for Plympton, and the introduction of several exhibits, including the requisite jurisdictional documentation and a sales-comparison analysis.  In her analysis, Ms. Stuart relied on four purportedly comparable properties that sold in Plympton between July of 2013 and October of 2014. Relevant information for these sales is contained in the following table:

Address	Sale
Date	Living
Area (sf)	Lot
Size (ac)	Beds/
Bath	Sale 
Price	
122 Brook Street	7/26/2013	2,464	3.88	4/2.5	$405,000	
 11 Deborah Sampson Way	9/16/2013	2,326	2.23	4/2.5	$421,500	
 16 Trout Farm Lane	6/18/2014	2,960	1.41	5/2.5	$442,500	
106 Upland Road	5/28/2013	2,499	0.90	4/2.5	$456,000	
In her analysis, Ms. Stuart relied on the 2014 sale of 16 Trout Farm Lane, noting that the previous 2012 sale of this property for $375,000 was a distress sale and not indicative of the property's fair market value.  Further, in her analysis, Ms. Stuart made adjustments to her purportedly comparable properties' sale prices to account for differences with the subject property, including: living area, number of bathrooms, age, and type of flooring.  Ms. Stuart's sale prices, after adjustments, ranged from $430,000 to $488,000.  Based on her comparable-sales analysis, Ms. Stuart determined a fair cash value for the subject property of $458,403.
Based on all of the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner found that the assessed value of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  In reaching his decision, the Presiding Commissioner placed considerable weight on the sale of 16 Trout Farm Lane on June 30, 2014 for $442,500, a sale which both parties used in their analyses.  After giving weight to this sale, and taking into account the subject property's smaller size and lack of an in-law apartment, the Presiding Commissioner concluded that the fair market value of the subject property for the fiscal year at issue was $435,000.  Accordingly, he decided this appeal for the appellant and granted an abatement in the amount of $480.57, inclusive of the appropriate portion of the CPA surcharge.
OPINION
	The 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 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 property has a lower value than that assessed.  "'The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to make out his 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, taxpayers "'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)). 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 value of the property at issue.  Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 400 (citing McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929)), aff'd, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008).  
The Presiding Commissioner need not specify the exact manner in which he arrived at his valuation.  Jordan Marsh v. Assessors of Malden, 359 Mass. 106, 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 Consolidated Gas, 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941).  In evaluating the evidence before him, the Presiding Commissioner selected among the various elements of value and formed his own independent judgment of fair cash value.  General Electric Co., 393 Mass. at 605.  "The credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for the [Presiding Commissioner]."  Cummington School of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977). 
Based on all of the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner found that the most probative evidence of the subject property's fair market value for the fiscal year at issue was the sale of 16 Trout Farm Lane on June 30, 2014 for $442,500.  Taking into account the subject property's smaller size and lack of an in-law apartment, the Presiding Commissioner concluded that the fair cash value of the subject property for the fiscal year at issue was $435,000.  Accordingly, he decided this appeal for the appellant and granted an abatement in the amount of $480.57, inclusive of the appropriate portion of the CPA surcharge.

    THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD


By: _______________________________    		    James D. Rose, Commissioner 


A true copy,

Attest: _____________________________
	    Clerk of the Board	

	

 When the last day for the performance of any act falls on Saturday, 
Sunday or a legal holiday, the act may be performed on the next succeeding business day.  G.L. c. 4, § 9 and G.L. c. 41, § 110A.  Therefore, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant's appeal was timely filed on Monday, May 5, 2014. 

ATB 2016-418