Hope Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Norwell (August 15, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
HOPE REALTY TRUST 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF NORWELL
Docket Nos. F346777 	Promulgated:
F346778 	August 15, 2025
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 	Norwell 	(“appellee” 	or
“assessors”) to abate a tax on two condominium units owned by and
assessed 	to 	Hope 	Realty 	Trust 	(“appellant”) 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2022
(“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner 	Elliott 	(“Presiding 	Commissioner”) 	heard 	these
appeals 	and, 	pursuant 	to 	G.L. 	c. 	58A, 	§ 	1A, 	issued 	single-member
decisions for the appellant.1
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request by the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Dr. Kristin Penza, Trustee, pro se, for the appellant.
Meredith Rafiki, Principal Assessor, for the appellee.
1 Simultaneously with the promulgation of these findings of fact and report,
the Presiding Commissioner is also issuing revised decisions for the appellant,
as the original decisions each referenced the other condominium unit at issue.
The 	revised 	decisions 	also 	reflect 	slight 	monetary 	changes 	to 	the 	abatement
amounts that resulted from the correction.
ATB 2025-259

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	testimony 	and 	documents 	admitted 	into 	evidence
during 	the 	hearing 	of 	these 	appeals, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner
made the following findings of fact.
On 	January 	1, 	2021, 	the 	relevant 	valuation 	and 	assessment
date for the fiscal year at issue, the appellant was the owner of
two 	adjacent 	office 	condominium 	units, 	numbered 	C-17 	(“Suite 	C-
17”) 	and 	C-18 	(“Suite 	C-18”), 	located 	in 	a 	two-story 	building 	at
80 Washington Square in the Town of Norwell (collectively, “subject
properties”).
For 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	the 	assessors 	valued 	Suite 	C-
17 	at 	$257,300 	and 	Suite 	C-18 	at 	$248,800, 	and 	assessed 	a 	tax 	on
each, at the commercial rate of $16.62 per thousand, in the amounts
of 	$4,404.62 	and 	$4,259.11, 	respectively. 	These 	amounts 	included
the respective portions of the Community Preservation Act (“CPA”)
surcharges. 	The 	appellant 	timely 	paid 	the 	taxes 	due 	without
incurring interest. On February 1, 2022, the appellant timely filed
abatement 	applications 	with 	the 	assessors, 	which 	the 	assessors
denied 	on 	March 	23, 	2022. 	On 	June 	22, 	2022,2 	the 	appellant
seasonably 	filed 	appeals 	with 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board 	(“Board”).
Based 	on 	this 	information, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	and
2 While the petitions were stamped as having been docketed by the Board on June
29, 2022, the envelope containing the petitions 	bore a United States Postal
Service postmark of 	June 22, 2022. Pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7, the Board
considered the date of the postmark to be the date of filing.
ATB 2025-260

ruled 	that 	the 	Board 	had 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and 	decide 	the
instant appeals.
The subject properties were built in 1989 and are in average
condition 	and 	of 	average 	quality 	with 	an 	effective 	year 	built 	of
2002. Suite C-17 contains 900 square feet of office area and Suite
C-18 	contains 	840 	square 	feet 	of 	office 	area. 	The 	subject
properties 	do 	not 	include 	bathroom 	facilities, 	as 	bathrooms 	are
part of the common area of the 80 Washington Square building. The
subject properties are contiguous and essentially used as a single
entity, 	as 	they 	are 	leased 	to 	similar 	tenants 	who 	share 	a 	main
entrance and reception area.
The appellant presented its case through the testimony of its
trustee, 	Dr. 	Kristin 	Penza, 	the 	testimony 	of 	the 	appellant’s
bookkeeper, 	Bridgett 	Ryan, 	and 	the 	submission 	of 	documents. 	Dr.
Penza 	testified 	to 	her 	opinion 	that 	the 	values 	of 	the 	subject
properties 	have 	fallen 	substantially 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the 	COVID-19
pandemic, 	during 	which 	tenancy 	at 	the 	subject 	properties 	dropped
significantly. 	Ms. 	Ryan 	presented 	income 	and 	expense 	forms 	to
demonstrate 	that 	the 	gross 	income 	on 	the 	subject 	properties 	had
dropped 	from 	$62,580 	in 	2019 	to 	$42,066 	in 	2020, 	and 	down 	to
$38,084 for 2021, with recovery beginning in 2022. After deducting
expenses, 	including 	real 	estate 	taxes 	and 	mortgage 	payments, 	the
subject properties generated net income of $45,447 in 2019, $22,741
in 	2020, 	and 	$18,140 	for 	2021. 	Dr. 	Penza 	testified 	that 	the
ATB 2025-261

appellant’s 	financial 	position 	vis-à-vis 	the 	subject 	properties
was 	untenable, 	and 	it 	could 	not 	afford 	to 	continue 	to 	pay 	these
elevated taxes in the face of the tremendous loss in revenue.
The appellant provided property record cards demonstrating 4
sales of purportedly comparable commercial condominiums within the
subject 	properties’ 	building 	at 	80 	Washington 	Square. 	Three
condominium 	units 	contained 	840 	square 	feet 	and 	the 	fourth
contained 	900 	square 	feet. 	The 	sales 	occurred 	between 	April 	2020
and 	July 	2021 	for 	prices 	of 	$244.69 	per 	square 	foot 	for 	the 	900-
square-foot unit and ranging from $263.99 per square foot to $285
per 	square 	foot 	for 	the 	smaller 	840-square-foot 	units, 	which 	was
appropriate because, as will be explained in the Opinion, smaller
properties 	typically 	command 	larger 	per-square-foot 	values. 	In
comparison, 	the 	subject 	units’ 	assessed 	values 	were 	$285.89 	per
square 	foot 	for 	the 	900-square-foot 	Suite 	C-17 	and 	$296.19 	per
square foot for the smaller 840-square-foot Suite C-18.
The 	assessors 	presented 	their 	case 	through 	the 	testimony 	of
Assessor 	Rafiki 	and 	the 	submission 	of 	documents, 	including 	the
requisite jurisdictional documents. Assessor Rafiki testified that
she could understand the appellant’s position, and that an income-
capitalization approach to valuing the subject properties using a
10.5% capitalization rate would yield indicated values lower than
the assessed values for the fiscal year at issue. Nonetheless, she
opined 	that 	the 	sales-comparison 	approach 	was 	the 	proper 	method
ATB 2025-262

for 	valuing 	the 	subject 	properties. 	Assessor 	Rafiki 	presented 	a
table listing six purportedly comparable sales from 80 Washington
Square, 	the 	subject 	properties’ 	building. 	The 	sales 	dates 	were
from 	January 	2020 	to 	December 	2020, 	and 	the 	sale 	values 	ranged
from $239,000 to $625,000. Two properties sold for $625,000, which
skewed 	her 	overall 	average. 	The 	appellee 	provided 	no 	explanation
for the outlier values that would enable the Presiding Commissioner
to 	review 	these 	units 	for 	comparability 	with 	the 	subject
properties.
In reviewing the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner agreed
with 	the 	assessors 	that 	the 	sales-comparison 	approach 	was 	the
appropriate method for deriving the subject properties’ fair cash
values 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	The 	Presiding 	Commissioner
reviewed 	the 	evidence 	and 	noted 	that 	the 	four 	sales 	at 	80
Washington 	Square 	that 	were 	provided 	by 	the 	appellant 	were
decidedly 	appropriate 	for 	comparison 	without 	significant
adjustment. These sales yielded a per-square-foot value of $244.69
for 	the 	900-square-foot 	Suite 	C-18 	and 	a 	slightly 	larger 	average
per-square-foot 	value 	of 	$275.85 	for 	the 	smaller 	840-square-foot
condominium. 	The 	subject 	properties’ 	assessments 	exceeded 	this
persuasive sales data.
The Presiding Commissioner found that a per-square-foot value
of 	$250 	for 	the 	900-square-foot 	Suite 	C-17 	and 	a 	per-square-foot
value 	of 	$260 	for 	the 	smaller 	840-square-foot 	Suite 	C-18
ATB 2025-263

appropriately 	reflected 	the 	fair 	cash 	values 	for 	the 	subject
properties. These reduced the subject properties’ assessed values
to $225,000 for Suite C-17 and a rounded $220,000 for Suite C-18.
Accordingly, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	issued 	revised
decisions for the appellant and ordered abatements of $552.93 for
Suite 	C-17 	and 	$493.02 	for 	Suite 	C-18, 	inclusive 	of 	appropriate
CPA surcharges.
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). 	An 	appellant 	has
the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	property 	has 	a 	lower 	fair 	cash 	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)).
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
ATB 2025-264

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 	instant 	appeal, 	the 	appellant 	presented 	evidence 	of
four condominium sales from the subject properties’ same building,
of 	the 	same 	sizes 	as 	the 	subject 	properties, 	and 	occurring 	close
in time to the relevant assessment date. Sales of comparable realty
in 	the 	same 	geographic 	area 	and 	within 	a 	reasonable 	time 	of 	the
relevant 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)). These sales yielded a per-
square-foot value of $244.69 for a 900-square-foot condominium and
an 	average 	of 	$275.85 	for 	an 	840-square-foot 	condominium. 	See
APPRAISAL INSTITUTE, THE A PPRAISAL OF REAL E STATE (15th ed., 	172) 	(smaller
properties ordinarily command a higher value per square foot than
larger ones).
Considering 	the 	evidence 	of 	record, 	the 	Presiding
Commissioner thus determined that the appellant had sustained its
burden 	of 	demonstrating 	that 	the 	subject 	properties’ 	fair 	cash
values for the fiscal year at issue were less than their assessed
values. 	Having 	considered 	the 	full 	record, 	the 	Presiding
ATB 2025-265

Commissioner 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	subject 	properties’ 	fair
cash 	values 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	were 	$225,000 	(Suite 	C-
17) and $220,000 (Suite C-18).
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
Consolidated 	Gas 	Co., 	309 	Mass. 	60, 	72 	(1941). 	In 	reaching 	his
opinion 	of 	fair 	cash 	value 	in 	these 	appeals, 	the 	Presiding
Commissioner 	was 	not 	required 	to 	believe 	the 	testimony 	of 	any
particular witness or to adopt any particular method of valuation.
Rather, the Presiding Commissioner could accept those portions of
the evidence that he determined had more convincing weight. Foxboro
Assocs. v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 683 (1982); New
Boston 	Garden 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	383 	Mass. 	456, 	473
(1981); Assessors of Lynnfield v. New England Oyster House, Inc.,
362 Mass. 696, 702 (1972). In evaluating the evidence before him,
the Presiding Commissioner selected among the various elements of
value and formed his 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).
ATB 2025-266

Accordingly, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	issued 	revised
decisions 	for 	the 	appellant 	ordering 	abatement 	in 	the 	amounts 	of
$552.93 	for 	Suite 	C-17 	and 	$493.02 	for 	Suite 	C-18, 	inclusive 	of
the appropriate CPA surcharges.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: 	_____ 	_____________________
Steven G. Elliott, Commissioner
A true copy,
Attest: 	___________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-267