Frank and Helen Seghezzi v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Dennis (January 10, 2001)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD

FRANK AND HELEN SEGHEZZI     v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF DENNIS


Docket No. F255656				     Promulgated:
							              January 10, 2001


This is an appeal under the formal procedure, pursuant to G.L. c. 59,  § 64 and 65, from the refusal of the appellee to abate taxes on certain real estate in the Town of Dennis owned by and assessed to the appellants under G.L. c. 59, § 38, for fiscal year 2000.  
	Commissioner Scharaffa heard this appeal and issued a single member decision for the appellee in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1, and 831 C.M.R. 1.20.
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellants under G.L. c. 58A, § 13, and 831 C.M.R. 1.32.


	Frank and Helen Seghezzi, pro se, for the appellants.

	Scott Fahle, assessor, for the appellee.



	On January 1, 1999, Frank and Helen Seghezzi ("appellants") were the assessed owners of a parcel of real estate, improved with a dwelling, located at 8 Mulberry Lane in the Dennisport section of the Town of Dennis.  The Board of Assessors of the Town of Dennis ("assessors") valued the property at $92,400 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $8.64 per thousand, in the amount of $822.29.  The total assessed value included a land value of $43,900 and a building value of $48,500.  On November 15, 2000, the appellants timely filed an application for abatement.  In their application, the appellants sought a $31,159 reduction in the valuation of the land, and an undefined reduction in valuation of the building.
	On January 27, 2000, the assessors denied the appellants' application.  On February 11, 2000, the appellants timely filed their appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  On this basis, the hearing officer found that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
	The subject property consists of a 5,663 square foot (.13 acre) parcel of land, situated on a cul-de-sac off Centre Street in Dennis.  The parcel is approximately one mile from the ocean.  As currently improved, the subject property does not conform to existing zoning by-laws but is considered a legal nonconforming use. Accordingly, although the appellants would be permitted to rebuild on the existing footprint if the existing dwelling was damaged or destroyed, the appellants' ability to otherwise build on the parcel would be limited by the applicable zoning by-laws. 
The appellants maintained that both the land value and the building value shown on the tax bill were excessive.  With respect to the land value, the appellants asserted that the lot is small, and that realtors consider the lot substandard and not readily saleable.  However, the appellants presented no documentary or other evidence to support this testimony.  In fact, the assessors submitted a computer printout showing that 82 parcels of .20 acres or less were sold in Dennisport between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 1998.  
Further, the appellants asserted that their land is overvalued in comparison to the per square foot land values the assessors designated for neighboring properties.  In arriving at their opinion of value, the appellants used the assessed value of approximately $2.25 per square foot of the neighboring parcel at 89 Centre Street and estimated that the land was overvalued in the amount of $31,159. 
With respect to the building value, the parcel is improved with a 1,414 square-foot cape-style, single-family, two-story house built in 1972.  One of the appellants testified that the home has a full basement and contains a total of six rooms.  According to the appellant, the first floor contained the kitchen, living room, and one full bathroom and the second floor contained two-bedrooms and a full bathroom.  The appellant did not specify the amount he believed the building component was overvalued.  Instead, the appellant stated that the house, built in 1972, was still only seventy-five percent finished, needing a bathtub hook-up upstairs, a skim coat on the painted wallboard, and hard wood flooring installed over the plywood floors.  The appellant argued that it would be expensive to complete the finish work, but provided no cost estimates. 
	In defense of their assessment, the assessors' witness presented an appraisal report supported by comparable sales data.  The appraisal report stated that the subject property's indicated market value on the relevant assessment date was $110,000.  The appraiser used a comparable sales approach to analyze recent sales of comparable properties, and made adjustments for location, appreciation, age of building, gross living area, and size and number of bathrooms.  All of the comparable properties were located within a mile of the subject property.  
Mr. Robert O'Connor, the appraiser called as an expert witness by the assessors, testified that the indicated value, based on sales of comparable properties in Dennisport, was adjusted downward by five percent to account for a sloped topography and by another five percent because an abutter's property was in disrepair.  This testimony was supported by the adjustment figure on the field cards submitted into evidence.
Mr. O'Connor testified that, in his opinion, the second floor of the building was ninety-five percent completed, needing only finish flooring and trimming out of the doors and windows.  In contrast to the appellants' testimony that the house contained two bedrooms, Mr. O'Connor stated that during his inspection he saw four bedrooms, two on the first floor and two on the second floor.
The field card showed that the assessors adjusted the value of the building to reflect the five percent of the house that remained incomplete.  In his appraisal report, Mr. O'Connor noted that the overall condition of the house was average and that the exterior required paint. 
The hearing officer considered all the sales of  comparable properties in making his decision for the appellee.  However, two sales in particular showed that the assessors' valuation of the subject property was appropriate.  Comparable number two, located at 31 Captain Chase was valued by the assessors at $124,000 for fiscal year 2000.  That property sold for $129,900 on May 8, 1998, approximately eight months before the January 1, 1999, assessment date.  Using that comparable, and after making adjustments to the sales price to account for date of sale, living area, age of building, and other amenities, the appraiser derived an indicated value of $110,750 for the subject property.  The parcel is .14 acres and contains a 1,260 square foot home built in 1998.  The home contains five rooms, including 3 bedrooms and two bathrooms.  
Comparable number four, located at 8 Holiday Lane in Dennisport, sold for $114,650 on February 9, 1999, slightly more than one month after the relevant assessment date.  After making the proper adjustments to the sales price, the appraiser derived an indicated value of $109,156.  The assessors had valued that property at $105,000 for fiscal year 2000.  The parcel is .11 acres, improved by a 1,487 square foot home containing four bedrooms and two bathrooms.  The home was built in 1975, three years after the subject property. Based on evidence of sales and the assessed values of the comparable properties, the Board finds that the subject property's assessed value of $92,400 did not exceed its fair cash value for fiscal year 2000.
	After considering all of the testimony and exhibits, the hearing officer found that the appellants did not meet their burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2000.  They failed to provide evidence sufficient to rebut the appraiser's testimony regarding the finish level of the house and failed to substantiate their assertions regarding the impact of alleged zoning restrictions on the salability of the subject parcel.  Further, the appellants did not prove the comparability to the subject property of the properties they used to support their claim of overvaluation of their land.  Also, the hearing officer found that the appellants never established how these properties' assessed values related to the market.  As a result, the hearing officer determined that the appellants did not demonstrate that their property was overassessed. 
	The hearing officer further found that the assessors adequately supported their valuation of the subject property.  The comparable sales analysis submitted by the assessors confirmed their valuation, as did the written appraisal report prepared in connection with the analysis.
On this basis, the hearing officer decided this appeal for the assessors and issued a single member decision for the appellee on October 10, 2000. 
      
OPINION
	The assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value.  G.L. 59, § 38.  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer 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 assessment is presumed valid unless the taxpayer sustains the burden of proving otherwise.  Schlaiker v. Board of Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).
	Accordingly, the burden of proof is upon the appellants to make out their right as a matter of law to an abatement of the tax.  Id.  The appellants must show that they have complied with the statutory prerequisites to their appeal, Cohen v. Assessors of Boston, 344 Mass. 268, 271 (1962), and that the assessed valuation of the property was improper.  See Foxboro Associates v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 691 (1982).  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. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 600 (1984), quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983). 
	In the present appeal, the hearing officer found that the appellants did not "expose flaws or errors in the assessors' method of valuation."  The appellants asserted that their land was overvalued in comparison to the land valuations of neighboring parcels and claimed that the building was overvalued because it was not finished as of the assessment date.  The hearing officer considered the evidence presented, and found that the appellants did not demonstrate that the overall assessment overstated the fair cash value of the subject property.  See Anderson v. Assessors of Barnstable, 199 Mass. A.T.B. Adv. Sh. 596 (Docket No. F250996, promulgated November 5, 1999).  "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 the single assessment is excessive.'"  Anderson v. Assessors of Barnstable, at 601-602(quoting Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921)).  Accordingly, the hearing officer considered the information submitted by the appellants, but found it insufficient to show that the overall assessment of the fair cash value of the subject property was excessive.  	
In contrast to the appellants' presentation, the hearing officer found that the comparable sales analysis and appraisal report submitted by the assessors supported their assessment.  The hearing officer found that the appraiser made appropriate selections of and adjustments to the comparable properties, and that the estimate of value of the subject property made by the appraiser was reasonable.  Since the estimate of value, $110,000, was more than the assessed value, the hearing officer found that the valuation was not in excess of the property's fair cash value.  On this basis, the hearing officer ruled that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that their property was overvalued in fiscal year 2000.  Accordingly, the hearing officer decided this appeal for the appellee. 

						Appellate Tax Board

					By:__________________________
                                 Frank J. Scharaffa, Member





A true copy,


Attest:_______________________
         Clerk of the Board

 The appellants also sought a reduction in personal property tax through their November 15, 1999 application for abatement.  The appellants accepted the Assessors revised personal property valuation.  Thus, the issue of Appellant's personal property valuation and assessment is not before the Board.  
 The appellant testified that he cannot build a garage on the parcel.  

1


ATB 2001 - 11