Brian J. & Gail M. Taylor v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Marshfield (September 22, 2010)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


BRIAN J. & GAIL M. TAYLOR 	v.	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF                        
THE TOWN OF MARSHFIELD
 
Docket No. F302696				Promulgated:
		  		   			September 22, 2010  


	This is an appeal under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65 from the refusal of the appellee Board of Assessors of the Town of Marshfield ("assessors" or "appellee") to abate taxes on real estate located in Marshfield, owned by and assessed to the appellants, Brian J. & Gail M. Taylor ("appellants") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2009.
Commissioner Mulhern heard this appeal.  Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Egan, and Rose joined him in a decision for the appellee.  
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.  

Brian Taylor, pro se, for the appellants.  
Elizabeth Bates, assessor/appraiser, for the appellee.


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On the basis of the exhibits and testimony offered into evidence, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2008, the appellants were the assessed owners of a parcel of real estate located at 938 Summer Street in Marshfield, Massachusetts ("subject property").  For fiscal year 2009, the assessors valued the subject property at $2,272,900 and assessed taxes thereon, at the rate of $9.99 per $1,000, in the amount of $22,706.27.  Of the subject property's total assessment, the assessors attributed $1,308,200 to the land and $947,000 to the building.  On December 29, 2008, the Marshfield Collector of Taxes mailed the town's actual fiscal year 2009 tax bills.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellants timely paid the tax assessed on the subject property without incurring interest.  On February 2, 2009, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellants timely filed their Application for Abatement with the assessors, which they denied on March 23, 2009.  On June 22, 2009, the appellants seasonably filed their appeal with the Board.  On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal. 
The subject property consists of an 11-acre parcel of land improved with a two-story, Colonial-style, single-family residence constructed in 1994.  According to its property record card, the dwelling contains twelve rooms, including five bedrooms, and also three full bathrooms and two half bathrooms.  The dwelling also has a partially finished basement, both open and enclosed porches, and a rear patio.  The subject property's property record card describes the interior finishes of the dwelling as excellent.  The exterior of the dwelling is clapboard, and it has a gable-style, wood-shingle roof.  The subject property is also improved with an in-ground pool, an 800-square-foot pool house/cottage, and also a 1,863-square-foot greenhouse.  The total finished living area, including the dwelling and detached pool house/cottage is 6,352 square feet.  The assessors describe the subject property as an "estate" setting.
The subject parcel, which is primarily rectangular in shape, is located in North Marshfield along the North River.  The area has been described as eclectic, improved with similar newer, "estate-type" residences, as well as much older homes dating back to the 17th century.  The subject parcel has approximately four hundred feet of frontage on North River, which is a navigable waterway that leads to the Atlantic Ocean.  According to the property record card, the parcel also includes approximately 3.9 acres of marsh lands.  The subject property is in a neighborhood identified as RFO - Riverfront Very Good ("RFO").  As evidenced by the property record card, the subject property land values were assessed at $18.43 per square foot for the first acre (43,560 square feet * $18.43 = $802,810.80); $80,281.08 per acre for excess acreage (6.1 acres * $80,281.08= $489,714.59) and $4,014.05 per acre for acreage identified as marsh land (3.9 acres * $4,014.05 = $15,654.80), resulting in a total land assessment of $1,308,200.
The appellants argued that the subject property was overvalued because the assessors had placed too high a value on the land portion of the assessment.  To support their case, the appellants primarily relied on the land assessments of eleven purportedly comparable properties located within two miles of the subject property, including the abutters of the subject property to the east and the west.  The properties ranged in size from 3.91 acres to 14.8 acres and all were riverfront properties with frontage that ranged from 120 feet to 530 feet.  The land assessments for the appellants' purportedly comparable properties ranged from $479,100 to $1,488,200.  Mr. Taylor argued that the properties cited in his spreadsheet offered locations and site characteristics comparable to the subject property, yet the land assessments of a majority of the properties were less than the subject property's land assessment.  The appellants further argued that the land value assessments of his purportedly comparable properties indicated inconsistencies in the town's overall land values.  
Finally, the appellants offered into evidence the property listing sheets and property record cards for several properties in Marshfield that have been listed for sale since 2007.  Included was the sale of 1233 Union Street, which is a 10.17-acre parcel of real estate improved with a 7,147-square-foot, single-family dwelling, also located in the RFO neighborhood.  This property sold on November 24, 2009 for $2,337,000.  Based on all the evidence submitted, the appellants argued that the subject property should be assessed at $1,871,500, the subject property's fiscal year 2006 assessed value.
In support of their assessment, the assessors offered the testimony of Elizabeth Bates, the town's assessor/appraiser.   Ms. Bates testified that there were no sales of similar-type properties in 2008.  However, the assessors offered into evidence the sale of two properties located in the RFO neighborhood which occurred approximately eighteen months prior to and eighteen months after the relevant assessment date.  Sale number one, located at 1277 Union Street, consists of a 9.9-acre parcel improved with a single-family dwelling with a finished living area of 4,111 square feet.  This property sold on June 30, 2006 for $2,600,000.  Sale number two, located at 1243 Union Street, consist of a 9.8-acre parcel improved with a single-family dwelling with a finished living area of 3,215 square feet.  This property sold on June 26, 2009 for $1,250,000.    
The assessors also offered into evidence the property record cards of four properties that they deemed to be comparable to the subject property.  Three of the four properties were located solely in the RFO neighborhood and ranged in size from 12.52 to 13.50 acres, with finished living areas that ranged from 4,771 square feet to 9,098 square feet.  The land value assessments ranged from $1,464,000 to $1,636,100 with the total assessed values ranging from $2,175,600 to $3,439,800.  The assessors' final comparable assessment was a 17.07-acre parcel improved with two residential structures with a total finished living area of 11,035 square feet.  This parcel was partially located in the MR1 neighborhood, identified as Main Road Very Good, and partially located in the RFO neighborhood.  The property's fiscal year 2009 land assessment was $1,921,000 and the total assessed value was $4,037,200.  Ms. Bates further testified that the properties situated in the RFO district are among the best sites in town offering water views and direct access to the North River.  
Based on the evidence presented, the Board found that the appellants' assessment comparison did not support their claim that the land component and the overall assessment of the subject property were excessive.  First, as evidenced by the purportedly comparable properties' property record cards, a majority of the properties were located in neighborhoods designated as riverfront good, compared to the subject property which was located in the riverfront very good neighborhood.  Second, in their land assessment comparison, the appellants failed to provide any information regarding the comparable properties' improvements and also failed to make any adjustments for differences that existed between the subject property and the purported comparables, including adjustments for land size, living area, and location.  Finally, as evidenced by both the appellants' land assessment comparison and the property record cards, the appellants' purported comparable properties that were located in the RFO neighborhood were all assessed at the same per-acre values as the subject property.
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found that the appellants did not meet their burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue.  The Board found that the appellants' focus on the land values of their purportedly comparable properties failed to address whether the overall assessment of the subject property was excessive.  Moreover, as evidenced by the property record cards for the appellants' purportedly comparable properties, all properties located within the RFO neighborhood were valued at the same per-acre land values, with any differences properly resulting from the amount of acreage in each of the three land-type categories.
For these reasons, and as discussed further in the Opinion below, the Board found that the appellants did not meet their burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2009 and, accordingly, issued a decision for the appellee.  
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 appellants have 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 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 assessors [is] valid unless the taxpayers . . . prove 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, 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)).  
At any hearing relative to the assessed fair cash valuation . . . of property, evidence as to the fair cash valuation . . . at which assessors have assessed other property of a comparable nature . . . shall be admissible." G.L. c. 58A, § 12B.  "The admissibility under G.L. c. 58A, § 12B, of evidence of assessments imposed on other property claimed to be comparable in nature to the subject property is largely a matter within the discretion of the board."  Assessors of Lynnfield v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 362 Mass. 696, 703 (1972).  The properties used in a comparable-assessment analysis must be comparable to the subject property in order to be probative of the fair cash value. See id.  
"The appellant bears the burden of 'establishing the comparability of . . . properties [used for comparison] to the subject propert[ies].'" Wood v. Assessors of Fall River, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Report 2008-213, 225. (Citation omitted.) "Once basic comparability is established, it is then necessary to make adjustments for the differences, looking primarily to the relative quality of the properties, to develop a market indicator of value."  New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 470 (1981).
	In the present appeal, the appellants relied on the land assessments of eleven purportedly comparable properties.  The appellants did not, however, make any adjustments for differences between the subject property and the purported comparable properties, including the different neighborhood classifications.  See Antonino v. Assessors of Shutesbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-54, 71 (finding that reliance on unadjusted assessments of assertedly comparable properties was insufficient to justify a value lower than that assessed).
Moreover, a taxpayer does not conclusively establish a right to abatement merely by showing that his land is overvalued. "The tax on a parcel of land and the building thereon is one tax . . . although for statistical purposes they may be valued separately."  Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Insurance Co., 310 Mass. 300, 317 (1941).  In abatement proceedings, "the question is whether the assessment for the parcel of real estate, including both the land and the structures thereon, is excessive. The component parts, on which that single assessment is laid, are each open to inquiry and revision by the appellate tribunal in reaching the conclusion whether that single assessment is excessive."  Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921); see also Chater v. Assessors of Dighton, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2009-372, 380; Buckley v. Assessors of Duxbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-110, 119. 
In the present appeal, the appellant challenged the value of the land component of the subject assessment.  The Board found that the land assessment for the subject property was consistent with the land assessments for other similarly-sized properties located in the same neighborhood as the subject property.  The Board further found that the appellants' evidence challenging the land value assessment failed to prove that the fair cash value of the subject property exceeded its overall assessment for the relevant assessment date.  See Pistorio v. Assessors of Boston, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2010-206, 214-15. 

Based on the evidence presented, the Board found and ruled that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that the subject property's land or overall assessment was overvalued.  On this basis, the Board decided this appeal for the appellee.

             APPELLATE TAX BOARD

				  By: _________________________________
					 Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman



A true Copy:

Attest: _____________________________
             Clerk of the Board

 When the last day of a filing period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the filing is still considered timely if it is made on the following business day. See G.L. c. 4, § 9; CFM Buckley/North, LLC v. Assessors of Greenfield, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-220, 223, n. 2.  Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the appellants timely filed their fiscal year 2009 Application for Abatement on Monday, February 2, 2009. 

	ATB 2010-848