CourtListener 10266274•Albert E. Grady v. Board of Assessors of Brockton.
Albert E. Grady v. Board of Assessors of Brockton.
CourtListener 10266274Massappct7 nov 2024
Testo completo
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
23-P-1062
ALBERT E. GRADY
vs.
BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF BROCKTON.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The taxpayer, Albert E. Grady, appeals from a decision of
the Appellate Tax Board (board), which dismissed Grady's appeal
from a refusal by the city of Brockton's board of assessors
(city) to abate a 2021 real estate tax. The board granted the
motion to dismiss because Grady failed to make his tax payments,
a jurisdictional requirement to appeal to the board. G. L.
c. 59, § 65. Discerning no error, we affirm.
Background. In February 2021, Grady applied for a tax
abatement with the city, generally alleging that given the
"blight" in the city, his property was overvalued by more than
$175,000.1 On receiving the city's denial of his application for
abatement, Grady filed an appeal with the board under G. L.
c. 59, § 64. The board conducted a hearing, and on finding that
Grady had not paid his taxes for the 2021 tax year, dismissed
his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal followed.
Discussion. In reviewing a decision by the Appellate Tax
Board, "[w]e uphold findings of fact of the board that are
supported by substantial evidence. We review conclusions of
law, including questions of statutory construction, de novo"
(citation omitted). Citrix Sys., Inc. v. Commissioner of
Revenue, 484 Mass. 87, 91 (2020). A taxpayer can appeal an
assessors' denial of a property tax abatement to either the
county commissioners or the board by filing a petition within
three months of the denial. G. L. c. 59, §§ 64, 65. While the
taxpayer does not have pay the amount due to request an
abatement with the local board of assessors, in order for the
board to entertain a petition to abate the taxes, the taxpayer
must pay the amount owed in full. See Randolph Credit Union v.
Board of Assessor of Randolph, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 268, 268-269
(1992) ("Among the conditions for filing an appeal with the
Appellate Tax Board from the denial by local assessors of an
application for abatement of real estate tax is that the tax, if
1 Grady's tax bill for 2021 was over $11,000. It is
undisputed that he did not pay these taxes.
2
more than $2,000 for the fiscal year, must have been paid in
full without any interest having become due on it").2 See also
Columbia Pontiac Co. v. Board of Assessors of Boston, 395 Mass.
1010, 1011 (1985) ("Payment of the full amount of the tax due
without incurring interest charges 'is a condition precedent to
the board's jurisdiction over an abatement appeal'" [citation
omitted]).
Here, there is no dispute that Grady did not pay his 2021
real estate tax prior to filing with the board. Therefore, the
decision of the board to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction
must be affirmed.3
Decision of the Appellate Tax
Board affirmed.
By the Court (Meade, Walsh &
Smyth, JJ.4),
Clerk
Entered: November 7, 2024.
2 The statute has since been amended to raise the relevant
dollar amount to $5,000 rather than $2,000.
3 Grady's claim that there were ex parte communications
between the city and the board do not rise to the level of
appellate argument. See Gaffney v. Contributory Retirement
Appeal Bd., 423 Mass. 1, 6 n.4 (1996).
4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
3
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.