Vitale, Ronald v. Board of Assessors of the City of Everett (March 27, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
RONALD VITALE 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE CITY OF EVERETT
Docket No. F349911 	Promulgated:
March 27, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	originally 	filed 	as 	a 	Statement 	Under 	the
Informal Procedure1 pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7A and G.L. c. 59,
§§ 	64 	and 	65, 	from 	the 	refusal 	of 	the 	Board 	of 	Assessors 	of 	the
City of Everett (“appellee” or “assessors”) to abate a tax on real
estate 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed 	to 	Ronald 	Vitale 	(“appellant”) 	and
Diana 	Vitale 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2023 	(“fiscal 	year 	at 	issue”). 	In
accordance 	with 	831 	CMR 	1.30(1), 	the 	parties’ 	request 	to 	receive
a decision from the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) without a hearing
was allowed.
Commissioner 	Patricia 	Ann 	Metzer 	was 	joined 	by 	Chairman
DeFrancisco 	and 	Commissioners 	Good, 	Elliott, 	and 	Bernier 	in 	the
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 1.34.
Ronald Vitale, pro se, for the appellant.
Bernard Devereux, assessor, for the appellee.
1 Within thirty days of service of the Statement Under Informal Procedure, the
assessors elected to transfer the proceedings to the formal docket. See G.L. c.
58A, § 7A.
ATB 2025-63

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	the 	parties’ 	written 	statements 	and 	exhibits
admitted 	into 	evidence, 	the 	Board 	made 	the 	following 	findings 	of
fact.
On 	January 	1, 	2022, 	the 	relevant 	valuation 	and 	assessment
date for the fiscal year at issue, the appellant was the assessed
owner of the property located at 613 Broadway (Rt. 99) in Everett
(“subject property”). The subject property is a 2,173 square-foot
parcel 	improved 	with 	a 	three-family 	apartment 	building,
constructed 	in 	about 	1900, 	comprised 	of 	2,891 	square 	feet 	of
finished 	living 	area, 	with 	twelve 	rooms, 	including 	six 	bedrooms
and 	three 	full 	bathrooms. 	The 	kitchens 	and 	bathrooms 	are 	rated
average. Depreciation is also average at 30%. The subject property
has an overall grade of “C,” and the traffic on the street on which
the subject property is located is rated as “heavy.”
The assessors valued the subject property at $729,500 for the
fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	and 	assessed 	a 	tax 	thereon, 	at 	a 	rate 	of
$11.78 per $1,000, in the total amount of $8,593.51. The appellant
timely 	paid 	the 	tax 	due 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	without
incurring interest. On January 23, 2023, the appellant timely filed
an 	abatement 	application, 	which 	was 	denied 	by 	a 	vote 	of 	the
assessors 	on 	April 	19, 	2023. 	On 	May 	24, 	2023, 	the 	appellant
seasonably filed an appeal with the Board. Based on the foregoing,
ATB 2025-64

the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	it 	had 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and
decide the instant appeal.
The 	assessors 	presented 	their 	case 	through 	the 	written
testimony 	of 	Assessor 	Devereux 	(“assessor” 	or 	“Mr. 	Devereux”),
their comparable-sales analysis, and jurisdictional documents. The
assessors submitted sales information for the thirty-three three-
family 	properties 	that 	sold 	in 	Everett 	in 	2021, 	focusing 	on 	the
following 	three 	sales: 	862 	Broadway 	(sale 	price 	$790,000); 	291-
293 	Chelsea 	(sale 	price 	$784,900); 	and 	96 	Vernal 	(sale 	price
$885,000). 	Having 	adjusted 	for 	market 	appreciation 	in 	the 	three-
family 	market 	segment 	in 	Everett 	in 	2021 	and 	the 	availability 	of
off-street 	parking, 	the 	assessors 	determined 	that 	the 	adjusted
sale 	prices 	of 	these 	three 	properties 	ranged 	from 	$812,100 	to
$832,500.2 	The 	assessors 	noted 	that 	the 	assessed 	value 	of 	the
subject 	property 	was 	less 	than 	these 	adjusted 	values, 	and 	they
maintained that the subject property was appropriately assessed at
$729,500.
The 	appellant 	also 	submitted 	a 	valuation 	analysis, 	focusing
on the 2021 sales of thirty-three three-family properties that the
assessors 	had 	reviewed 	in 	determining 	the 	value 	of 	the 	subject
property. 	Specifically, 	the 	appellant 	argued 	that 	the 	assessors’
2 The 	assessors 	also 	adjusted 	for 	the 	increased 	size 	of 	living 	area 	of 	862
Broadway but inexplicably did not make adjustments for living area for the other
two 	purportedly 	comparable 	properties. 	The 	assessors 	also 	adjusted 	for 	the
superiority of the neighborhood of 96 Vernal.
ATB 2025-65

valuation 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	flawed 	because 	it 	was
calculated 	based 	on 	sales 	of 	properties 	that 	were 	not, 	according
to the appellant, comparable to the subject property. The appellant
argued 	that 	although 	they 	were 	all 	three-family 	properties 	in
Everett, only one of the properties used in the assessors’ analysis
was 	comparable 	to 	the 	subject 	property, 	in 	that 	it 	had 	the 	same
number of rooms, bedrooms, and bathrooms: 33 Waters Avenue, which
sold for $565,000.3
The 	appellant 	also 	emphasized 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	has
no 	off-street 	parking 	and 	severely 	restricted 	on-street 	parking,
and 	he 	noted 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	is 	located 	in 	a 	busy
commercial zone, differentiating it from the three properties the
assessors 	focused 	on 	in 	calculating 	the 	assessed 	value 	of 	the
subject 	property. 	The 	appellant 	argued 	that 	these 	factors
contributed 	significantly 	to 	a 	lower 	fair 	market 	value 	of 	the
subject 	property. 	Based 	on 	the 	above, 	the 	appellant’s 	opinion 	of
value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	was
$632,560.
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	of 	record, 	the 	Board 	found 	that 	the
three properties most comparable to the subject property were the
above-referenced properties: 862 Broadway, 291-293 Chelsea, and 96
Vernal. The Board found that the adjustments to the sale prices of
3 The 	sale 	price 	of 	33 	Waters 	Avenue 	was 	dismissed 	by 	the 	assessors 	as 	non-
probative of the valuation of the subject property due to the unusual financing
situation of 33 Waters Avenue.
ATB 2025-66

these properties made by the assessors were flawed. In particular,
the Board found that the assessors’ analysis failed to adjust for
the 30% depreciation rate of the subject property, and it did not
adjust 	for 	the 	larger 	living 	area 	of 	one 	of 	the 	comparable
properties. Furthermore, the Board found that the subject property
does 	not 	have 	any 	available 	off-street 	parking 	spaces, 	and 	the
assessors’ analysis incorrectly attributed one off-street parking
space 	to 	the 	subject 	property. 	In 	consideration 	of 	the 	record 	in
its 	entirety, 	the 	Board 	arrived 	at 	a 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	$690,000
for the subject property for the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellant
and ordered an abatement in the amount of $465.31.
OPINION
Assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash
value as of the first day of January preceding the fiscal year at
issue. 	G.L. 	c. 	59, 	§ 	38. 	Fair 	cash 	value 	is 	defined 	as 	the 	price
upon which a willing buyer and a willing seller will agree if both
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 at
issue 	has 	a 	fair 	cash 	value 	lower 	than 	its 	assessed 	value. 	“The
burden 	of 	proof 	is 	upon 	the 	petitioner 	to 	make 	out 	its 	right 	as
[a] matter of law to abatement of the tax.” Schlaiker v. Assessors
ATB 2025-67

of 	Great 	Barrington, 	365 	Mass. 	243, 	245 	(1974) 	(quoting 	Judson
Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55 (1922)).
In 	appeals 	before 	this 	Board, 	“[t]he 	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. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Lynn, 	393 	Mass.
591, 	600 	(1984) 	(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, 	399-400 	(citing 	McCabe 	v. 	Chelsea,
265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929)), aff’d, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008).
“Adjustments 	must 	be 	made 	to 	. 	. 	. 	sales 	data 	to 	account 	for
differences 	between 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	the 	properties
offered 	for 	comparison.” 	Doherty 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Lee, 	Mass. 	ATB
Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2013-174, 	181 	(citing 	Lareau 	v.
Assessors of Norwell, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2010-
879, 889-90.
In 	the 	present 	appeal, 	the 	appellant 	provided 	persuasive
evidence to substantiate his assertion that the assessed value of
the subject property was greater than its fair cash value for the
ATB 2025-68

fiscal year at issue. Though the assessors based the valuation of
the 	subject 	property 	on 	sales 	of 	comparable 	three-family
properties 	that 	occurred 	in 	2021, 	the 	adjustments 	made 	by 	the
assessors, 	as 	described 	above, 	were 	inadequate 	to 	accurately
reflect the fair cash value of the subject property.
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
Consol. 	Gas 	Co., 	309 	Mass. 	60, 	72 	(1941). 	In 	evaluating 	the
evidence 	before 	it, 	the 	Board 	selected 	from 	among 	the 	various
elements of value and formed its own independent judgment of fair
cash value. General Electric Co., 393 Mass. at 605; North American
Philips 	Lighting 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Lynn, 	392 	Mass. 	296, 	300
(1984).
The Board took into account the record as a whole focusing on
the various factors differentiating the subject property from the
comparable 	sales 	referenced 	above 	and 	determined 	that 	the 	fair
cash 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	$690,000 	for 	the 	fiscal
year at issue.
ATB 2025-69

Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellant in
this appeal and ordered an abatement in the amount of $465.31.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: 	________________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: _____________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-70