Forrestall, Matthew & Catherine v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Stow (July 31,2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
MATTHEW & CATHERINE 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS
FORRESTALL 	OF THE TOWN OF STOW
Docket Nos. F348275, F351021 	Promulgated:
July 31, 2026
These are appeals heard 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
Stow (“appellee” or “assessors”) to abate taxes on real estate owned by and assessed to
Matthew and Catherine Forresstall (“appellants”) for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 (“fiscal
years at issue”).1
Commissioner 	Metzer 	heard 	these 	appeals. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	and
Commissioners Good, Elliott, and Bernier joined in the decisions for the appellee.
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.
Mark F. Murphy, Esq., for the appellants.
Kristen Fox, Principal Assessor, for the appellee.
1 The appeal for fiscal year 2023 was originally filed under the informal procedure. Within thirty days of service of the
Statement Under Informal Procedure, the assessors elected to transfer the proceedings relating to fiscal year 2023 to
the formal procedure. See G.L. c. 58A, § 7A.
ATB 2026-295

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on testimony and documents admitted into evidence during the hearing of
these appeals,2 the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2022 and January 1, 2023, the relevant valuation and assessment
dates for the fiscal years at issue, the appellants were the assessed owners of an
improved 4.39-acre parcel of land located at 87 Kettell Plain Road, in the Town of Stow
(“subject property”). The subject property is improved with a single-family, Colonial-style
home built in 2000, containing 3,116 square feet of living area, with a total of ten rooms,
including four bedrooms, as well as two full bathrooms and one half bathroom and
featuring an attached two-car garage and an inground pool (“subject home”). The subject
home was rated an “A” grade for the fiscal years at issue. The appellants purchased the
subject property on November 13, 2020 for $950,000.
The following chart illustrates the relevant jurisdictional facts:
Fiscal
Year
Assessed
Value
Tax Rate/
Total Tax
Amount 3
Taxes
Timely
Paid
(Y/N)
Abatement
Application
Filed
Date of
Denial
Date
Petition
Filed
2023 	$983,400 	$18.13/$1,000
$18,309.52
Y 	1/30/2023 	2/08/2023 	4/21/2023
2024 	$1,097,700 	$16.97/$1,000
$19,135.90
Y 	1/18/2024 	4/18/2024 	5/10/2024
On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction over
these appeals.
The appellants presented their case through their testimony and the submission of
a 	self-prepared document entitled 	“Historical 	Assessment Line Graphs,” an aerial
mapping photograph of the subject property, and property record cards for the subject
2 In addition to testimony and documentary evidence, each party filed briefs in this appeal.
3 The total tax amount includes the Community Preservation Act surcharge on the subject property.
ATB 2026-296

property and five purportedly comparable neighboring properties located at 75, 78, 79,
85, and 89 Kettell Plain Road for the fiscal years at issue. The appellants called Kristen
Fox, Principal Assessor, as a witness. Ms. Fox testified over her own objection.
Having purchased the subject property at the end of the first year of COVID on
November 13, 2020 for $950,000 in an arm’s-length transaction, the appellants argued
that the sale price of the subject property was not an accurate reflection of its fair cash
value. In their view, they overpaid for their property because the market was unusually
competitive for buyers. This argument provided one basis for the appellants’ assertion
that the fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year 2023 was about $840,000,
which is less by $110,000 than the sale price paid by the appellants just over a year prior
to the valuation date for fiscal year 2023. However, the appellants failed to provide any
evidence in the form of market data to substantiate their assertion that the sale prices of
real estate were temporarily inflated at the time of their purchase or that prices declined
at any time after their purchase of the subject property. Lacking such evidence, the Board
found and ruled that the argument advanced by the appellants asserting that the purchase
price for the subject property was inflated due to a notably competitive market at the time
of purchase was unfounded.
The appellants further contended that the subject property was overvalued
compared to the assessed values of the above-referenced purportedly comparable
properties. The appellants argued that the properties were all generally similar in size,
style, date of construction, and location, having been built by the same builder with no
significant later renovations or improvements, but they acknowledged that the subject
property was “slightly better” than two of the purportedly comparable properties. They
ATB 2026-297

presented a comparable-sales analysis that lacked persuasive details and failed to
substantiate their opinions of value for the fiscal years at issue. In particular, the
appellants’ analysis failed to make specific adjustments for superior features of the
subject property including a movie theater in the basement and a sound dampening music
room. Of note was the subject home’s superior grade of “A” for the fiscal years at issue
versus the “B” to “A-” grades attributed to the purportedly comparable properties, which
the appellants, without substantiation, disputed.
The appellants also argued that the assessed value of the subject property had
increased significantly without justification almost immediately after the appellants’
purchase. They claimed that the assessors had impermissibly singled out the subject
property for an increase in assessed value due to the sale, while the assessed values of
the purportedly comparable properties were not subject to a similar increase. The
appellants referred to this as an example of “spot assessment.” The Board found and
ruled that this argument lacked merit, as discussed in the Opinion below.
The appellants’ opinion of fair cash value of the subject property for fiscal year
2023 was about $840,000, and their opinion of fair cash value of the subject property for
fiscal year 2024 was about $990,000.
The assessors, for their part, submitted jurisdictional documents, cross-examined
the appellants, and then rested on the presumed validity of the assessments. However,
when called to testify by the appellants, Ms. Fox credibly testified that the grade of the
subject home improved from “B+” to “A” proximate in time to the sale of the subject
property 	based 	on 	Multiple 	Listing 	Service 	(“MLS”) 	photos 	and 	descriptions 	that
highlighted features of the home previously unaccounted for in the subject home’s grade.
ATB 2026-298

Ms. 	Fox 	concluded 	that 	the 	assessed 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	increased
commensurately with the improved grade. Ms. Fox further testified that the Stow real
estate market for single family homes listed on MLS increased from 2020 to 2021 by
16.78 percent, while the appellants’ assessment increased from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal
year 2023 by a lesser 15 percent.
Based on the evidence presented, the Board found and ruled that the sale price
paid by the appellants in an arm’s-length transaction just over a year prior to the valuation
date for fiscal year 2023 was the strongest indicator of the value of the subject property
for fiscal year 2023. The Board found and ruled that the assessed values of the appellants’
purportedly comparable properties were less probative of value than the actual recent
sale price, noting also that adjustments were not made for specific differences between
them and the subject property. Based on the record in its entirety, the Board found and
ruled that the appellants presented insufficient evidence to support a finding that the
subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2023.
Further, the appellants offered no basis in support of their claimed value of about
$990,000 for fiscal year 2024, a value only 4.21 percent more than their purchase price
of $950,000, notwithstanding that the property record cards admitted into evidence for the
appellants’ purportedly comparable properties indicated an upward trend in assessed
values from fiscal year 2023 to fiscal year 2024.
Accordingly, the Board issued decisions for the appellee in these appeals.
ATB 2026-299

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 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). 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, “[t]he 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)).
Actual sales of the particular property at issue are “very strong evidence of fair
market value, for they represent what a buyer has been willing to pay to a seller for [the]
particular property [under appeal].” New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston,
383 Mass. 456, 469 (1981) (quoting First Nat’l Stores, Inc. v. Assessors of Somerville,
358 Mass. 554, 560 (1971)). In the present appeals, the Board found and ruled that the
purchase price that the appellants paid for the subject property in an arm’s-length
ATB 2026-300

transaction that took place just over a year prior to the valuation date for fiscal year 2023
was the strongest evidence of the subject property’s fair cash value. The assessed value
of the subject property for fiscal year 2023 represented an increase of only 3.52 percent
over the purchase price paid just over a year prior to the valuation date for fiscal year
2023.
Further, the evidence presented by the appellants did nothing to demonstrate that
the subject property was overvalued for either of the fiscal years at issue. In particular, as
noted 	previously, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellants’ 	contention 	that
competitive conditions at the time of their purchase temporarily distorted the fair cash
value of the subject property was not borne out by any evidence of a falling market post
sale. The assessors credibly testified that there was an upward trend in the market based
on overall MLS listings relevant to fiscal year 2023. Further, the property record cards
admitted for the appellants’ purportedly comparable properties indicated an upward trend
in assessed values from fiscal year 2023 to fiscal year 2024.
Finally, the appellants’ allegation that the valuations of the subject property for the
fiscal years at issue were the result of a disallowed practice known as “spot assessing” is
without merit. “Spot assessing” is ill-defined without adequate legal precedent. Indeed,
the appellants’ reliance on the theory was supported only with reference to a footnote in
a marginally relevant case.4 Moreover, the theory was not relevant to the assertion of
overvaluation, the central issue in these appeals.
4 The appellants cite C & S Wholesaler Grocers, 436 Mass. 459, 463, n.2 (2002).
ATB 2026-301

Based on the foregoing, the Board found and ruled that the appellants failed to
meet their burden of proving a fair cash value for the subject property that was lower than
its assessed values for the fiscal years at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued decisions for the appellee in these appeals.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: 	__________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-302