Patricia I. Drury v. Board of Assessors of Templeton.

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

22-P-573

PATRICIA I. DRURY

vs.

BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF TEMPLETON.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The taxpayer, Patricia I. Drury, appeals from a decision of

a single member of the Appellate Tax Board (board) issued in

accordance with G. L. c. 58A, § 1A, denying an abatement of the

fiscal year 2020 1 tax assessment by the town of Templeton (town)

on the taxpayer's real property and improvements. Although it

is virtually impossible to discern the taxpayer's arguments from

the briefing, it appears that the taxpayer believes that a

receivership order from the Worcester Superior Court concerning

an adjoining property establishes that the town's valuation is

excessive.

1 Although the taxpayer suggests that we should abate her taxes
from 2008 to 2022, she challenged only the 2020 tax assessment
below.
We are unable to reach the taxpayer's issues on the record

before us. We have only such materials as the parties put

before us; it is the taxpayer's burden, as appellant, to provide

a record sufficient to support her claims on appeal. See Mass.

R. A. P. 18 (a), 365 Mass. 764 (1974); Hasouris v. Sorour, 92

Mass. App. Ct. 607, 610 n.4 (2018). We cannot discern from the

record before us what arguments or evidence were placed before

the board beyond what is mentioned in the board's decision. See

G. L. c. 58A, § 13 ("The court shall not consider any issue of

law which does not appear to have been raised in the proceedings

before the board"). 2 Although "some leniency is appropriate in

determining whether the papers of a self-represented litigant

comply with applicable court rules," Tynan v. Attorney Gen., 453

Mass. 1005, 1005 (2009), the taxpayer's unrepresented status

neither excuses her failure to provide us with the information

necessary to decide her appeal, see Greci v. Travelers Ins. Co.,

483 Mass. 1032, 1033 (2020), nor otherwise permits us to reach

her appeal's merits.

We do observe that, "[w]hen challenging an assessment

before the board, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing

2 The taxpayer appears to challenge the failure of the board to
record the hearing but presents no evidence that she complied
with the requirement that she request such recording in
accordance with 831 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.28(1) (2007), or that
she requested waiver of the fees for such recording.

2
its right to an abatement of the assessed tax." Boston Gas Co.

v. Assessors of Boston, 458 Mass. 715, 717 (2011). The board

determined that the taxpayer "offered no evidence to establish

that the assessed value of the subject property was excessive."

Because the taxpayer had the burden of proof, the taxpayer's

failure to present credible evidence that the property was worth

less than $150,000 defeated her abatement claim even in the

absence of any evidence from the town. Accordingly, the

taxpayer's attack on the town's evidence, method of proof, and

representation is irrelevant to this appeal.

We have reviewed the receiver's report mentioned in the

taxpayer's brief (even assuming that it was presented to the

board) and see no indication that it establishes that the

taxpayer's property is worth less than $150,000. Nor, on this

record, does it appear that the taxpayer provided any evidence

of the value of the property other than her son's testimony that

the property would sell for approximately $300,000. "As may any

trier of fact, the board could accept or reject and pick and

choose from evidence the parties present to it," provided it

articulates "an objectively adequate rationale for rejection of

the evidence." Turners Falls Ltd. Partnership v. Assessors of

Montague, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 732, 736 (2002). We see no

indication that the board acted improperly in concluding that

the taxpayer failed to provide credible (or, indeed, any)

3
evidence that the property was worth less than $150,000. See

Peterson v. Assessors of Boston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 430

(2004).

Decision of the Appellate Tax
Board affirmed.

By the Court (Wolohojian,
Shin & Ditkoff, JJ. 3),

Clerk

Entered: October 5, 2023.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

4