North, Jeffrey S. & Mary Anne v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Belmont (April 23, 2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
MARY ANNE & JEFFREY S. NORTH 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS
OF THE TOWN OF BELMONT
Docket No. F350973 	Promulgated:
April 23, 2026
This is an appeal 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
Belmont (“assessors” or “appellee”) to abate a tax on real estate owned by and assessed
to Mary Anne and Jeffrey S. North (“appellants”) for fiscal year 2024 (“fiscal year at
issue”).
Chairman DeFrancisco heard the appeal. Commissioners Good, Elliott, Metzer,
and Bernier joined him in the decision for the appellee.
These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellants
under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Mary Anne and Jeffrey S. North, pro se, for the appellants.
Dan Dargon, Assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2026-174

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing of this appeal, the
Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
I. Introduction and jurisdiction
On January 1, 2023, the appellants were the owners of a 2,028-square-foot, single-
family, Colonial-style home (“subject home”) situated on an 8,200-square-foot lot at 138
School Street in Belmont (together, “subject property”). The subject home was built in
1930 and has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The property record card lists the
condition of the subject home as “poor” with a grade of “C.”
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at
$1,311,000, and assessed a tax thereon at the rate of $10.56 per thousand, in the amount
of $13,844.16, exclusive of the Community Preservation Act surcharge. The tax due was
timely paid without incurring interest. On January 30, 2024, the appellants timely filed an
abatement application with the assessors. The assessors granted a partial abatement on
April 5, 2024, reducing the assessed value to $1,246,000. Seeking a further reduction,
the appellants timely filed an appeal with the Board on May 10, 2024. Based on these
facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
II. The appellants’ case
In addition to their testimony, the appellants presented photographs of the subject
property, a written presentation with “proof points,” a comparable-assessments analysis,
and a comparable-sales analysis. No property record cards for the comparable properties
were offered into evidence.
The appellants testified to the condition of the subject property, stressing its age,
lack of garage, lack of bathroom on the first floor, cracked walls and ceilings, antiquated
ATB 2026-175

kitchen and bathrooms, drafty aluminum windows, and an overall abundance of deferred
maintenance. They also noted cracks in the foundation caused by town vehicles and
flooding on the lot (though not in the subject home’s basement) during rainstorms that
hinders landscaping.
In their comparable-sales analysis, the appellants identified thirteen sales that
occurred during 2022, ranging in sale prices from $1,000,000 to $1,230,000. The majority
of the thirteen properties were not Colonial-style homes, like the subject home. In their
comparable-assessments analysis, the appellants identified twelve properties that ranged
in assessed value from $991,000 to $1,260,000. All but four of the properties had smaller
living areas than the subject home’s living area. The appellants made no adjustments to
any of their comparable properties to account for differences between those properties
and the subject property.
The appellants concluded an opinion of value of $1,050,000 for the subject
property for the fiscal year at issue.
III. The appellee’s case
The appellee presented jurisdictional documents and otherwise rested on the
presumed validity of the assessed value.
IV. The Board’s findings
Based upon the record in its entirety, the Board found that the appellants failed to
establish that the fair cash value of the subject property was lower than its assessed value
for the fiscal year at issue.
While the appellants presented numerous documents and photos to the Board,
the record critically lacked evidence to establish adjustments to their comparable
properties to account for differences between the comparable properties and the subject
ATB 2026-176

property. Further, the property record card for the subject property characterized the
condition of the subject property as poor, indicating that the assessors - in determining an
assessed value for the subject property - had already taken into account various
detracting value factors.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee.
OPINION
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 will
agree if both are fully informed and under no compulsion. Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors
of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
A taxpayer has the burden of proving that the property at issue 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 taxpayer[] sustain[s] the burden of
proving the contrary.’” General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598
(1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
In appeals before the 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)). Here, the appellants provided no evidence of flaws or errors
ATB 2026-177

in the assessors’ method of valuation and failed to present affirmative evidence of
overvaluation. Conversely, the assessors characterized the condition of the subject
property as poor, an indication that the assessed value already reflected the various
detracting factors identified by the appellants.
The Board considered the information and comparable properties submitted by the
appellants, but found that this evidence was not useful to establish a fair cash value lower
than the assessed value. See North American Philips Lighting Corp. v. Assessors of
Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 297-299 (1984). Allowances must be made for various factors that
would otherwise cause disparities in the comparable properties. Here, the record was
devoid of evidence to account for any differences between the comparable properties and
the subject property. 	Doherty v. Assessors of Lee, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and
Reports 2013-174, 181 (“Adjustments must be made to both assessed values and sales
data to account for differences between the subject property and the properties offered
for comparison.”) (citing Lareau v. Assessors of Norwell, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact
and Reports 2010-879, 889-90). See Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass.
ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 402 (“The assessments in a comparable
assessment analysis, like the sale prices in a comparable sales analysis, must . . . be
adjusted to account for differences with the subject.”), aff'd, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008)
(Rule 1:28 Decision); Lupacchino v. Assessors of Southborough, Mass. ATB Findings
of Fact and Reports 2008-1253, 1269 (“[W]ithout appropriate adjustments . . . the
assessed values of [comparable] properties did not provide reliable indicator[s] of the
subject’s fair cash value.”). Without the appropriate adjustments, the appellants’ reliance
ATB 2026-178

on the sale prices and assessed values of other properties was not a persuasive indicator
of the subject property’s fair cash value.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision in favor of the appellee.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ___________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-179