James D. & Cherlyn Flanagan v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Milford (March 17, 2011)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



JAMES D. & CHERLYN FLANAGAN	v.   BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
							THE TOWN OF MILFORD

Docket No. F303417				Promulgated:
							March 17, 2011


	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 Milford ("appellee" or "assessors") to abate taxes on real estate located in the Town of Milford, owned by and assessed to James D. & Cheryln Flanagan ("appellants") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2009 ("fiscal year at issue").
Commissioner Mulhern ("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 appellants under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	James D. Flanagan, pro se, for the appellants.
	Priscilla Hogan, 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 Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.  
On January 1, 2008, the appellants were the assessed owners of a parcel of real estate improved with a single-family dwelling located at 8 Whispering Pine Drive in Milford ("subject property").  For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at $454,700 and assessed a tax, at the rate of $12.53 per thousand, in the total amount of $5,697.39.  The Milford Collector of Taxes mailed the fiscal year 2009 tax bills on December 29, 2008.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellants paid the tax due without incurring interest.  On January 23, 2009, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellants timely filed an abatement application with the assessors.  The assessors denied the abatement application on April 23, 2009.  On July 7, 2009, the appellants seasonably filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
The subject property is a 1.037-acre parcel of land improved with a single-family, wood-frame, Colonial-style dwelling.  The subject dwelling, which was built in 1997, has a clapboard exterior and an asphalt, gable-style roof.  The dwelling contains 2,129 square feet of living area and has a total of eight rooms, including four bedrooms, as well as two full bathrooms and one half bathroom.  The living room, family room and dining room have hardwood floors.  The entry way, kitchen and baths have ceramic tile, and the bedrooms have carpet flooring.  The master bath has double sinks, a separate shower and a Jacuzzi tub.  The dwelling is heated by a forced-hot-water, oil-fueled heating system.  Other amenities include one fireplace, central air conditioning, an attached two-car garage, an enclosed porch, an in-ground pool, and a shed.  Overall the subject dwelling is in good condition.  The subject property is located on a dead-end drive in a sub-division of reasonably similar properties.
In an attempt to prove that the subject property was overvalued, the appellants offered into evidence the "parcel summary" printouts, downloaded from the assessors' website, of six properties that sold between April 13, 2007 and November 6, 2007 with sale prices that ranged from $400,000 to $425,000, and also four purportedly comparable properties that had lower assessed values than the subject property.  The appellants did not, however, offer into evidence the property record cards for these properties nor did they provide a reasonably detailed description of each property, including finished living area and location.  Moreover, the appellants failed to offer any charts or other evidence comparing the characteristics of the purportedly comparable properties to those of the subject property with reasonable adjustments for differences.  
In support of their assessment, the assessors offered into evidence the testimony of Priscilla Hogan, as well as sales data from five purportedly comparable properties that sold during 2007.  The five properties ranged in size from 0.346 to 1.915 acres, and all were improved with Colonial-style homes with finished living areas that ranged from 1,800 to 2,774 square feet.  After making adjustments for differences in lot size, total living area, location, and overall condition, the adjusted sale prices of the assessors' comparable properties ranged in value from $402,000 to $519,500.
	On the basis of all of the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the fair cash value of the subject property was less than its assessed value.  The Presiding Commissioner found that while the parcel summary printouts provided basic information about the appellants' purportedly comparable properties, they did not supply the necessary detailed information contained in property record cards, which would allow the Presiding Commissioner to properly establish basic comparability with the subject property.  Further, the appellants failed to make adjustments for differences between their purportedly comparable properties and the subject property.
	Based on these findings, and after considering all of the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner ultimately found that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue. The Presiding Commissioner, therefore, decided this appeal for the appellee.

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, §§ 11 and 38. The fair cash value of property is defined as the price upon which a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree if both were fully informed and under no compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956). 	The burden of proof is upon the taxpayers to make out their right to an abatement.  Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).  The assessment is presumed to be valid unless the taxpayers meet their burden of proving otherwise.  Id.  A right to an abatement can be proven by either introducing evidence of fair cash value or by proving that the assessors erred in their method of valuation.  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 600 (1984).
	Generally, real estate valuation experts, the Massachusetts courts, and this Board rely upon three approaches to determine the fair cash value of property: income capitalization, sales comparison, and cost reproduction.  Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Authority, 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978).  "The board is not required to adopt any particular method of valuation."  Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 397 Mass. 447, 449 (1986).
 	Actual sales of the subject "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. Board of Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 469 (1981) (quoting First Nat'l Stores, Inc. v. Assessors of Somerville, 358 Mass. 554, 560 (1971).  "Evidence of the sale prices of 'reasonably comparable property' is the next best evidence to the sale of the property in question."  Lattuca v. Robsham, 442 Mass. 205, 216 (2004).  Properties are "comparable" to the subject property when they share "fundamental similarities" with the subject property, including similar age, locations, sizes and date of sale.  Id. at 216.  The appellants bear the burden of "establishing the comparability of . . . properties [used for comparison] to the subject propert[ies]."  Wood v. Assessors of Fall River, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Report 2008-213, 225.  "Once basic comparability is established, it is then necessary to make adjustments for the differences, looking primarily to the relative quality of the properties, to develop a market indicator of value."  New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 470 (1981).
	"At any hearing relative to the assessed fair cash valuation or classification of property, evidence as to fair cash valuation or classification of property at which assessors have assessed other property of a comparable nature or class shall be admissible."  G.L. c. 58A, § 12B.  "The introduction of such evidence may provide adequate support for either the granting or denial of an abatement." John Alden Sands v. Assessors of Bourne, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-1098, 1106-07, (citing Chouinard v. Assessors of Natick, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-299, 307-308.
In the present appeal, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the fair cash value of the subject property was less than its assessed value.  The Presiding Commissioner found that while the parcel summary printouts provided basic information about the appellants' purportedly comparable properties, they did not supply the detailed information contained in property record cards, which would allow the Presiding Commissioner to properly establish basic comparability with the subject property.  See Lareau v. Assessors of Norwell, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2010-879, 890-91 (ruling that the appellants' failure to submit property record cards and other fundamental evidence containing corroborating and detailed information about their purportedly comparable properties compromised the appellants' ability to prove that their property was overvalued).  In addition, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellants failed to make any adjustments for differences that existed between their purportedly comparable properties and the subject property.  See New Boston Garden Corp., 383 Mass. at 470.
	"The board [is] not required to believe the testimony of any particular witness but [may] accept such portions of the evidence as appear to have the more convincing weight." Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941).  "The credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for the board."   Cummington School of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977). 
	Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued a single-member decision for the appellee.
 			  		 
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
  			   
                     By:				____________	
			         Thomas J. Mulhern, Commissioner

A true copy,
Attest:	______	_____	_____
	      Clerk of the Board

ATB 2011-129