Thomas & Cynthia Corrado v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Sharon (September 14, 2010)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



THOMAS & CYNTHIA 	       v.		BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
CORRADO					     THE TOWN OF SHARON

Docket No. F299389				Promulgated:
							September 14, 2010

	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 appellee to abate taxes on real estate located in the Town of Sharon, owned by and assessed to the appellants under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2009.
	Commissioner Egan heard the appeal.  Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Rose and Mulhern joined her in a 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 1.32.
		
	Thomas Corrado, pro se, for the appellants.
	Mark Mazur, assessor, for the appellee.


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On the basis of the exhibits and testimony offered into evidence during the hearing of this appeal, 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 6 Mink Trap Lane in the Town of Sharon ("subject property").  For fiscal year 2009, the Board of Assessors of the Town of Sharon ("assessors") valued the subject property at $597,200, and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $17.72 per thousand, in the total amount of $10,582.38.  The appellants timely paid the tax assessed.  On December 8, 2008, the appellants timely filed an abatement application with the assessors.  On February 17, 2009, the assessors granted a partial reduction in assessed value to $564,800, resulting in an abatement of $574.87.  On April 8, 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 over the instant appeal.
The subject property consists of a 2.3-acre parcel of land improved with a single-family, Colonial-style home built in 1986 and containing 2,658 square feet of gross living area.  The subject home is comprised of eight rooms, including three bedrooms, as well as two full bathrooms and one half bathroom.  The exterior of the subject home is shiplap siding with a gable hip roof.  The first floor of the subject home has hardwood flooring and the second floor is carpeted.  The subject home's hot-water heating system is fueled by gas.  Other amenities of the subject home include central air conditioning, a fireplace, a 225-square-foot finished basement, a finished enclosed porch, a finished two-car garage, a finished open porch, and a wooden deck.  The subject property also includes a shed.
The original property record card for the subject property reveals that the assessors rated the subject property at a grade 8 for "excellent +10."  After the appellants appealed the subject assessment, the assessors reduced the subject's rating to a grade 7 "excellent."  The lesser grade resulted in a reduction in value of $32,400 to $564,800, which produced a real estate tax abatement of $574.87.  
The appellants presented their case through the testimony of appellant Thomas Corrado.  Mr. Corrado contended that the subject property was overvalued based on a comparison with the assessments and sales of two purportedly comparable properties - 121 Furnace Street and 125 Furnace Street.  According to Mr. Corrado, the two comparable properties and the subject property were all built by the same builder.  With respect to the comparable properties' assessments, Mr. Corrado focused on the land portion of the assessment, with the subject property at 2,658 square feet, 121 Furnace Street at 2,464 square feet, and 125 Furnace Street at 2,699 square feet.  Mr. Corrado pointed out that the three properties were all assigned the same land values in 1996, but by the fiscal year at issue, the land value of the subject has increased by over $40,000 over the land values of these comparables.  Next, Mr. Corrado pointed to the 2007 sale prices of these purportedly comparable properties, noting that 121 Furnace Street sold for $505,000 and 125 Furnace Street sold for $415,000.  Based on Mr. Corrado's comparable assessments and comparable sales, the appellants' opinion of value for the subject property was $510,000.
Mark Mazur, Assessor for Sharon, testified in defense of the subject assessment.  He explained that the subject home's grade was reduced from an 8 to a 7 after comparison with the home at 121 Furnace Street, one of the appellants' comparables, which they had cited in their abatement application.  Mr. Mazur also explained that the assessors had already applied two discounts to the land value of the subject property for fiscal year 2009: (1) a ten-percent discount for an easement for a "paper street" that runs along the property for 280 feet and cuts through the rear of the property for 130 feet; and (2) a seventy-five-percent discount on the value of the excess land for the topography and the easement.  These reductions totaled $30,600, resulting in a total land value for fiscal year 2009 of $230,100.  
Finally, Mr. Mazur pointed out key differences between the subject property and the appellants' comparables at 121 Furnace Street and 125 Furnace Street.  First, the comparable properties are located in a neighborhood which is inferior to that of the subject property, particularly because Furnace Street is a cut-through street.  Second, the comparable properties each contain a large area of wetlands and power lines also run through their parcels.  Finally, the sale of 125 Furnace Street on October 30, 2007 was a foreclosure sale, and the appellants offered no evidence to support a finding that the price paid represented fair market value.  
On the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, the Board found that the appellants' comparable-sales analysis and comparable-assessments analysis both failed to establish that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue.  First, the appellants' comparable-assessments analysis focused solely on the land portions of the comparable assessments.  However, as will be explained in the following Opinion, the Board found that the appellants' land-value analysis did not provide credible, persuasive evidence that the total assessment, including land and building values, exceeded the subject property's fair cash value.     
With respect to the comparable-sales analysis, the Board found that the differences between the appellants' purportedly comparable properties and the subject - particularly with respect to their location in a less desirable neighborhood on a cut-through street and the presence of wetlands and power lines - greatly compromised their comparability with the subject property.  Moreover, the appellants did not apply any adjustments to the sale prices of these properties to compensate for these differences.  Finally, because the sale of 125 Furnace Street was by foreclosure and the appellants failed to introduce further evidence concerning the circumstances of the sale, the Board found that the sale did not provide reliable or persuasive evidence of value in this appeal. 
Based on these findings, as will be explained more fully in the following Opinion, the Board thus found that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that the assessed value of the subject property, as abated, exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  Accordingly, the Board 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 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 taxpayers sustain their 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 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 appellants first asserted that the land component of the subject property was overvalued in comparison to the land-component valuations of two purportedly comparable parcels located at 121 Furnace Street and 125 Furnace Street.  However, a taxpayer does not establish a right to an abatement merely by showing that either the land or a building is overvalued; "'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, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1999-596, 601-02 (quoting Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921)).  Here, the Board found and ruled that the appellants' land-valuation evidence failed to account for any other components of the total subject assessment in comparison with the comparables' total assessments and therefore was insufficient to show that the overall assessment of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value. 
The appellants next employed a comparable-sale analysis using 121 Furnace Street and 125 Furnace Street.  "[S]ales of property usually furnish strong evidence of market value, provided they are arm's-length transactions and thus fairly represent what a buyer has been willing to pay for the property to a willing seller."  Foxboro Associates v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982).  Sales of comparable realty should be within the same geographic area and within a reasonable time of the assessment date to be probative evidence for determining the value of the property at issue.  Graham  v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-321, 400 (citing McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929)), aff'd 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008).  Moreover, when comparable sales are used, allowances must be made for various factors which would otherwise cause disparities in the comparable properties' sale prices.  See Pembroke Industrial Park Co., Inc. v. Assessors of Pembroke, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-1072, 1082 (and the cases cited therein).  
The Board found that the comparable properties' location in a less desirable neighborhood on a cut-through street and the presence of considerable wetlands and power lines within their parcels greatly compromised these properties' comparability with the subject property.  Moreover, the appellants further erred by failing to apply any adjustments to the sale prices of these properties or their assessed values to compensate for these differences.  
Finally, evidence of sales may be considered "only if they are free and not under compulsion."  Congregation of the Mission of St. Vincent dePaul v. Commonwealth, 336 Mass. 357, 360 (1957) (other citation omitted).  The Board found that, because the sale of 125 Furnace Street was by foreclosure and the appellants failed to introduce further evidence concerning the circumstances of the sale, the sale price of 125 Furnace Street was not reliable or persuasive evidence of the fair cash value of the subject property for purposes of this appeal.  See DSM Realty, Inc. v. Assessors of Andover, 391 Mass. 1014 (1984) ("A foreclosure sale inherently suggests a compulsion to sell; a proponent of evidence of such sale must show circumstances rebutting the suggestion of compulsion."); see also Finigan v. Board of Assessors of Belmont, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2004-533, 544 and Waters v. Board of Assessors of Wayland, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2001-460, 469.  
On the basis of all of the evidence submitted at the hearing of this appeal, and the conclusions drawn from that evidence, the Board found and ruled that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that the subject assessment, as abated, exceeded its fair cash value.  Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal. 

    	    		     APPELLATE TAX BOARD

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



A true copy,


Attest:	______		_____
	    Clerk of the Board

ATB 2010-825