Hedgcorth, Matthew & Nanci v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Swansea (June 22, 2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
MATTHEW & NANCI HEDGCORTH 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF SWANSEA
Docket No. F352675 	Promulgated:
June 22, 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
Swansea (“assessors” or “appellee”) to abate a tax on certain real estate located in the
Town 	of 	Swansea, 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed 	to 	Matthew 	and 	Nanci 	Hedgcorth
(“appellants”), for fiscal year 2024 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Commissioner Metzer (“Presiding Commissioner”) heard this appeal under G. L.
c. 58A, 1A and 831 CMR 1.32, and issued a single-member decision for the appellants.
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.
Matthew and Nanci Hedgcorth, pro se, for the appellants.
Michael Minardi, Assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2026-213

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on the testimony and documents presented at the hearing of this appeal,
the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2023, the relevant valuation and assessment date for the fiscal year
at issue, the appellants were the assessed owners of a 0.55-acre waterfront parcel of
land improved with a single-family dwelling located at 351 Ocean Grove Avenue (“subject
property”). For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at
$476,300 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $11.04 per thousand, in the amount
of $5,773.16, inclusive of the Community Preservation Act (“CPA”) surcharge and the
Water District Tax. The tax due was timely paid without incurring interest. On January 25,
2024, the appellants timely filed an abatement application, which the assessors denied
on April 18, 2024. Subsequently, on July 18, 2024, the appellants timely filed an appeal
with 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board 	(“Board”). 	Based 	on 	these 	facts, 	the 	Presiding
Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this
appeal.
The subject property is improved with a bungalow-style, single-family dwelling
built in 1910 with an effective year built of 1986. The subject dwelling has a finished living
area of 1,212 square feet and contains five rooms, including two bedrooms as well as
one full and one half bathroom. The overall condition is rated fair.
The appellants indicated that the subject dwelling is a “rabbit run” style house with
no hallways, requiring them to walk through a bedroom to reach the living area and
sunroom at the back of the house. The appellants argued that the layout of the dwelling
negatively impacts the value of the subject property. Regarding the location of the subject
property, the appellants stated that approximately 50 percent is bound by resource area
ATB 2026-214

conservation rules, and that the shoreline is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. They
further indicated that, although the subject property abuts a waterway, access is limited
because of the muddy nature of the land. Mrs. Hedgcorth, who testified that she is a
member of the Swansea Conservation Commission, further testified that the subject
property was, up to one foot before the house, in a flood zone. The property record card
for the fiscal year at issue indicates that the subject property’s land is located in one of
the town's waterfront locations designated as “WF7.” The assessors’ “Proposed Denial
Motion,” attached to the assessors' abatement denial notice, indicates that the lot’s
location in a flood zone did not decrease its value. No discounts are indicated in land
value shown on the property record card to account for the resource area, condition of
the land, and shoreline subject to the Wetlands Protection Act
The appellants offered three market analyses listing sales and providing related
property information, including proposed listing prices for the subject property. All were
prepared at the end of 2024 by local real estate agents, none of whom testified at the
hearing of this appeal. The analyses included sales in calendar years 2020, 2021, and
2024 that were well before or beyond the assessment date, and the limited statistical
information provided relative to sales occurring in 2022 was not probative of the subject
property's fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue. Being hearsay, which was not subject
to cross-examination by the assessors, the Board did not consider the analyses or the
agents’ proposed listing prices for the subject property.
The appellants offered an opinion of the fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue
of $400,000.
ATB 2026-215

The assessors presented their case through the testimony of Assessor Michael
Minardi and Deputy Assessor James Sullivan and the submission of documents, including
the requisite jurisdictional documents, a comparable-sales analysis, and a map marking
the locations of the subject property and the comparable properties. The assessors'
comparable-sales analysis used three waterfront properties located within less than a
mile of the subject property. All three properties sold in calendar year 2022 with sale prices
that ranged from $501,000 to $575,000. After the assessors applied adjustments to
account for differences between these properties and the subject property and the lapse
of time between the sale and assessment dates, the assessors derived adjusted sale
prices ranging from $548,500 to $581,000, and indicated that even if an adjustment were
made to account for functional obsolescence on account of the interior layout of the
subject property, the adjusted sale prices would still be in line with the assessed value of
the subject property.
Based on the evidence presented, the Presiding Commissioner found that the fair
cash value of the subject property was lower than its assessed value for the fiscal year at
issue, being negatively impacted by resource area conservation restrictions, the muddy
land area in a flood zone, a shoreline protected by the Wetlands Protection Act, and the
interior 	layout 	of 	the 	home. 	Considering 	the 	record 	in 	its 	entirety, 	the 	Presiding
Commissioner found that the assessed value of the subject property was excessive for
the fiscal year at issue and found its fair cash value for fiscal year 2024 to be $440,000.
Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner decided this appeal for the appellants
and granted an abatement in the amount of $441.25, inclusive of the CPA surcharge and
Water District Tax.
ATB 2026-216

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 of them 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 taxpayers sustain[] 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)).
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 evaluating the
evidence presented, the Presiding Commissioner may select among the various elements
of value and form an independent judgment of fair cash value. General Electric Co., 393
Mass. at 605; North American Philips Lighting Corp. v. Assessors of Lynn, 392 Mass.
ATB 2026-217

296, 300 (1984). “The credibility of witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and the
inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for the [Presiding Commissioner].”
Cummington School of Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605
(1977).
Based on the record in its entirety, the Presiding Commissioner found that the
appellants submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the subject property’s
assessed value was higher than its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue and
determined a fair cash value for the subject property of $440,000.
The Presiding Commissioner therefore decided this appeal for the appellants and
granted an abatement in the amount of $441.25, inclusive of the CPA surcharge and the
Water District Tax.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ___________________________________
Patricia Ann Metzer, Commissioner
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-218