Patricia M. Hughes v. Board of Assessors of the City of Quincy (May 21, 2012)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



PATRICIA M. HUGHES		      v.		   BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
								   THE CITY OF QUINCY

Docket No. F312385		   			   Promulgated:
		 						   May 21, 2012


	This is an appeal 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 City of Quincy ("assessors" or "appellee") to abate taxes on certain real estate owned by and assessed to Patricia M. Hughes ("appellant") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38 for fiscal year 2011.
	Commissioner Rose ("Presiding Commissioner") heard this appeal under G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.20 and issued a single-member decision for the appellee.
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	Patricia M. Hughes, pro se, for the appellant.
	Peter Moran, chief assessor, and Marion Fantucchio, assessor, for the appellee.


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	On January 1, 2010, the appellant was the assessed owner of a residential condominium unit numbered 907E located at 1001 Marina Drive in the City of Quincy ("subject unit").  The subject unit is located in Marina Point Condominiums ("Marina Point") within the seaside community known as Marina Bay.  Marina Point is a 245-unit condominium complex consisting of two buildings; the first building was constructed in 1987 and the second building was constructed in 1988.  In addition to residential condominiums, Marina Bay offers office condominiums, restaurants, specialty shops, and also 680 boat slips. 
	The subject unit contains two bedrooms, living and dining space, a kitchen, a balcony, and one and one-half bathrooms.  The subject unit's floors are carpeted, and it is heated and cooled by its own heat pump.  The subject unit is located on the top floor and is situated on the city-side, as opposed to the harbor-side, of the condominium building.  The subject unit's interior is generally in good condition, but has not been renovated since the appellant purchased the subject unit in 1990.  The subject unit also has two deeded parking spaces.
	For fiscal year 2011, the assessors valued the subject unit at $384,300 and assessed taxes thereon, at the rate of $13.42 per thousand, in the total amount of $5,195.46.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellant timely paid the tax due without incurring interest.  On January 31, 2011, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellant timely filed an abatement application with the assessors.  On March 10, 2011, the assessors granted a partial abatement reducing the assessed value of the subject unit by $15,800 to $368,500.  Not satisfied with this reduction, the appellant seasonably filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") on June 9, 2011.  On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
	The appellant presented her case through her own testimony and the introduction of several exhibits including:  a 2002 moisture intrusion report of the exterior building envelopes of the Marina Point buildings prepared by R.J. Kenny Associates, Inc. ("Kenny report"); a copy of the subject unit's property record card; listings of the 2008 and 2010 Marina Point condominium sales, which were produced by the Warren Group; Multiple Listing Service ("MLS")  listings and printed pictures for unit #711E, located in the same building as the subject unit, and also unit #102W, located at 2001 Marina Drive; photographs of the subject unit's kitchen; and purported estimates for the installation of hardwood floors throughout the subject unit and to update the kitchen. 
	The appellant testified, and the Kenny report confirmed, that deficiencies in the original construction of the Marina Point buildings resulted in failure of the exterior wall system, which in turn caused severe water damage to many units.  In 2003, Marina Point contracted with Eastern Exterior Wall Systems ("Eastern") to fix the exterior wall structural defects.  Subsequently, Eastern defaulted on its contractual obligations, and their contract was terminated and litigation ensued.  	
	The appellant argued that the subject unit was overvalued for fiscal year 2011 because the assessors failed to take into account the exterior condition of the subject unit's building as well as the expense of the pending litigation and its impact on the subject unit's value.  Ms. Hughes further argued that the assessors failed to take into account the fact that the subject unit had not been updated since she purchased the unit in 1990.
	In support of her contention that the subject unit was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue, the appellant introduced the sales listing for five sales of condominium units located at Marina Point that occurred during calendar year 2008, with sale prices ranging from $210,000 to $495,000, and six sales that occurred during 2010, with sale prices ranging from $281,000 to $350,000.  The appellant's listings included the units' sale dates, sale prices, total number of rooms, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and the total living area.  The appellant did not, however, offer into evidence the property record cards for any of these units.  Ms. Hughes relied most heavily on the sales of unit #102W and #711E, which sold for $380,000 on November 3, 2008 and December 2, 2008, respectively.  The MLS listing sheets submitted by the appellant indicated that these units had been renovated with amenities such as hardwood floors and updated kitchens.  
In support of the assessment, the assessors offered into evidence the testimony of Peter Moran, assistant assessor, and a comparable-sale analysis of six condominium units located in the same building as the subject unit.  The purportedly comparable units sold between July 16, 2007 and December 1, 2010 with sale prices that ranged from $270,000 to $380,000.  The assessors made adjustments to account for differences in floor location, number of bathrooms, total living area, and number of deeded parking spaces.  The assessors determined that comparable sale number two, unit #711E, which was also cited by the appellant, was the most comparable to the subject unit. This unit sold for $380,000 on December 2, 2008.  After a $10,000 floor location adjustment, the assessors arrived at an adjusted sale price of $390,000.  
	Based on the evidence presented, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant did not demonstrate that the subject unit was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue. The appellant's main contention was that other units, which she contended had been upgraded, sold for less than the subject unit's assessed value.  However, the appellant failed to make any adjustments for differences between her purportedly comparable properties and the subject unit including, most notably, the subject unit's penthouse location.  Absent such adjustments, no meaningful comparison of these properties with the subject unit could be made. Therefore, the appellants' evidence lacked persuasive value.  
	In contrast, the assessors provided a comparable-sales analysis of six condominium units located in the same building as the subject unit, which included reasonable adjustments to compensate for differences with the subject unit that would affect fair market value.  The Presiding Commissioner therefore found that the assessors' analysis supported the contested assessment.  
	Finally, the sales cited by both the appellant and the assessors occurred while the Marina Point buildings were in their present condition and the litigation cited by the appellant was pending.  Thus, even if these issues had an impact on the cited sales, that impact was incorporated into the sale prices.  With this subsidiary finding in mind, and having found that the assessors' comparable-sale analysis supported the contested assessment, the Presiding Commissioner also found that the appellant's contentions regarding the building's condition and the litigation were unavailing.
	On this basis, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant failed to meet her burden of proving that the subject unit was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued a single-member decision for the appellee in this appeal.

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 in a free and open market 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 appellant has the burden of proving that the property 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[] . . . prove[s] the contrary.'" General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598 (1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245). 
	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, 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).
	 "[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).  Once basic comparability is established, it is then necessary to make adjustments 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).
	In the present appeal, the appellant introduced the sales listing for eleven purportedly comparable properties that sold during calendar years 2008 and 2010.  However, the appellant failed to make adjustments for differences between her purportedly comparable properties and the subject unit including, most notably, the subject unit's penthouse location.  Absent such adjustments, no meaningful comparison of these properties with the subject unit could be made.  Therefore, the appellant's evidence lacked persuasive value.  See New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 470 (1981). 
	In contrast, the assessors provided a comparable-sales analysis of six condominium units located in the same building as the subject unit, which included reasonable adjustments to compensate for key differences with the subject unit that would affect fair market value, including floor location, number of bathrooms, total living area, and number of deeded parking spaces.  Therefore, the Presiding Commissioner found that the assessors' evidence supported the subject unit's assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.   
	On the basis of all of the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant failed to prove that the fair cash value of the subject unit was less than its assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.  The Presiding Commissioner therefore found and ruled that the appellant did not establish her right to an abatement and, accordingly, issued a single-member decision for the appellee in this appeal.

		    APPELLATE TAX BOARD

				  	By: _____________________________
					    James D. Rose, Commissioner


A true copy:

Attest: _______________________
        Clerk of the Board

 This includes a Community Preservation Act charge of $38.15.
 The Warren Group is the publisher of Banker & Tradesman and The Commercial Record; it also, among other things, provides real estate and financial information and analyses to subscribers.

ATB 2012-684