James M. Knott, Sr. and Betty D. Knott v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Northbridge (June 30, 2008)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD

JAMES M. KNOTT, SR.	and	   v.	 BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
BETTY D. KNOTT					 THE TOWN OF NORTHBRIDGE


Docket Nos. F286296, F286299		 
		  F286300, F286303 
		  F286307, F286308
            F286310  			 Promulgated:
							 June 30, 2008

These are appeals 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 Northbridge ("assessors" or "appellee") to abate taxes on real estate located in the Town of Northbridge, owned by and assessed to James M. and Betty D. Knott ("appellants") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2006.
	Commissioner Rose heard these appeals.  In accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1 and 831 CMR 1.20, Commissioner Rose issued single-member decisions for the appellee in docket numbers F286296, F286300, F286303, and F286307.  Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Egan, Rose, and Mulhern joined him in the decisions for the appellee in docket numbers F286308 and F286310.  In docket number F286299, Commissioner Rose originally issued a single-member decision for appellants.  Upon further review, Commissioner Rose issued a revised single-member decision in docket number F286299, which is promulgated simultaneously with these findings, dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to requests by appellants under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	Warren G. Miller, Esq., for appellants.
	Robert Fitzgerald, assessor, for the appellee.

			FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On January 1, 2005, the relevant date of assessment, appellants were the assessed owners of several parcels of real estate located in the Town of Northbridge ("Town").  For fiscal year 2006, the assessors valued the subject properties and assessed taxes thereon as follows.  

  Location	Map/Lot	Assessed Value	Tax Assessed	
Quaker Street	27/01	$  282,100	$ 2,431.70	
Providence Road	23/16	$   21,100	$   181.88	
1700 Providence Road	23/12	$  254,800	$ 2,196.38	
School Street	22/59	$   42,300	$   364.63	
1646-1652 Quaker Street	27/07	$  357,500	$ 3,081.65	
Riverdale Street	27/04	$6,358,300	$54,808.55	
Hill Street	16/36	$  991,200	$ 8,544.14	


On December 30, 2005, Northbridge's Collector of Taxes mailed the Town's actual real estate tax bills.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, appellants timely paid the taxes due without incurring interest.  On February 1, 2006, appellants filed Applications for Abatement with the assessors.  The assessors denied appellants' abatement applications as follows:


Docket No.	
Parcel 	Date of Denial/
Partial Abatement	Due Date of Petition	
F286296	27/01	3/27/2006	6/27/2006	
F286299	23/16	3/20/2006	6/20/2006	
F286300	23/12	3/27/2006	6/27/2006	
F286303	22/59	3/20/2006	6/20/2006	
F286307	27/07	3/20/2006	6/20/2006	
F286308	27/04	3/27/2006	6/27/2006	
F286310	16/36	3/27/2006	6/27/2006	

As discussed more fully in the Opinion below, appellants' appeals to the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") were due on June 20, 2006 for parcels 27/07, 23/16, and 22/59 and Tuesday, June 27, 2006 for parcels 16/36, 27/04, 27/01, and 23/12.  Appellants did not file their appeals with the Board until Wednesday, June 28, 2006.  
On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over these appeals.  The Board, therefore, decided these appeals for the appellee. 

OPINION
G. L. c. 59, § 65, provides in pertinent part: 

A person aggrieved as aforesaid with respect to a tax on property in any municipality may, subject to the same conditions provided for an appeal under section sixty-four, appeal to the appellate tax board by filing a petition with such board within three months after the date of the assessors' decision on an application for abatement as provided in section sixty-three, or within three months after the time when the application for abatement is deemed to be denied as provided in section sixty-four. 

In the present appeals, the Board found that the assessors acted on appellants' abatement applications for docket numbers F286299, F286303, and F286307, on March 20, 2006.  Three months from the date of the assessors' decisions was June 20, 2006.  Therefore, the Board found that June 20, 2006, was the last day for appellants to timely file their appeals with the Board.  For docket numbers F286296, F286300, F286308, and F286310, the Board found that the assessors acted on appellants' abatement applications on March 27, 2006.  Three months from the date of the assessors' decisions was June 27, 2006.  Therefore, the Board found that June 20, 2006 and June 27, 2006, respectively, were the last days for appellants to timely file their appeals with the Board.  Appellants did not file their appeals with the Board until June 28, 2006.  Therefore, the Board found and ruled that appellants' appeals were not timely.
The Board has only that jurisdiction conferred on it by statute. Stilson v. Assessors of Gloucester, 385 Mass. 724, 732 (1982).  "Since the remedy of abatement is created by statute, the [B]oard lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of proceedings that are commenced at a later time or prosecuted in a different manner from that prescribed by statute."  Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981) (citing Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law School, 295 Mass. 489, 495 (1936).  Adherence to the statutory prerequisites is essential "to prosecution of appeal from refusals to abate taxes."  New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. v. Assessors of Dartmouth, 368 Mass. 745, 747 (1975).  "[A] statutory prerequisite to jurisdiction cannot be waived by any act of the assessors."  Suffolk Law School, 295 Mass. at 494; Old Colony R. Co. v. Assessors of Quincy, 305 Mass. 509, 511-12 (1940).  Like the assessors, the Board cannot waive jurisdictional requirements.  Id. Accordingly, the time limit provided for filing the petitions is jurisdictional and a failure to comply with it must result in dismissal of the appeals.  Doherty v. Assessors of Northborough, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-372, 373 (citing Cheney v. Inhabitants of Dover, 205 Mass. 501 (1910); Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law School, 295 Mass. 489 (1936)); see also Berkshire Gas Co. v. Assessors of Williamstown, 361 Mass. 873 (1972).
In the present appeals, appellants filed their appeals with the Board more than three months from the date of the assessors' decisions.  Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over these appeals and issued decisions for the appellee.

     APPELLATE TAX BOARD



				By: _________________________________
					  Thomas W. Hammond, Chairman





A true copy,



Attest: _____________________________
	   	  Clerk of the Board

  Appellants' petitions were filed in hand at the Appellate Tax Board, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA, 02114.

ATB 2008-807