Kemp Stewart W. v. Board of Assessors of the City of Beverly (August 17, 2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
STEWART W. KEMP 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE CITY OF BEVERLY
Docket No. F351363 	Promulgated:
August 17, 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 City of Beverly
(“assessors” or “appellee”) to abate a tax on real estate owned by and assessed to
Stewart W. Kemp (“appellant”) under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38 for fiscal year 2024 (“fiscal
year at issue”).
Chairman DeFrancisco heard the appeal. Commissioners Good, Elliott, Metzer,
and Bernier joined him in the 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 1.34.
Stewart W. Kemp, pro se, for the appellant.
Frank Golden, Assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2026-325

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on the testimony and evidence admitted into evidence at the hearing of this
appeal, the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
I. Introduction and jurisdiction
On January 1, 2023, the appellant was the owner of a 4,371-square-foot, Colonial-
style home (“subject home”) situated on an 18,198-square-foot parcel at 81 Lothrop Street
in Beverly (together, “subject property”). The subject home was built in 1901 and has
eleven rooms, including seven bedrooms, three bathrooms, one three-quarter bathroom,
and one half bathroom. The subject property also features a garage and bath house. On
the relevant property record card, the assessors assigned the subject property a B+ grade
and denoted the subject property to be in fair condition. The appellant acquired the subject
property for $1,225,000 in January 2012.
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at
$1,888,000 and assessed a tax thereon at the rate of $11.23 per thousand, in the amount
of $21,202.24, exclusive of the Community Preservation Act surcharge. The tax due was
timely paid without incurring interest. On January 30, 2024, the appellant timely filed an
abatement application with the assessors. On March 11, 2024, the appellee granted a
partial abatement, reducing the assessed value to $1,778,200. Seeking a further
reduction in assessed value, the appellant timely filed this appeal with the Board on June
6, 2024. Based on these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear
and decide this appeal.
II. The appellant’s case
In addition to his own testimony, the appellant submitted several documents that
were admitted into evidence to illustrate his claim that the assessors overvalued the
ATB 2026-326

subject property, including the 	following: photographs of the 	subject property, his
abatement application submission for the subject property for fiscal year 2023, his
abatement application submission for the subject property for the fiscal year at issue,
several additional submissions to the assessors, an excerpt from Churchill Properties with
median sale prices of homes in Beverly for 2023 and 2024, and a copy of the abatement
certificate from the assessors for the fiscal year at issue.
The appellant testified that the assessors raised the value of the subject property’s
land by 74 percent in just two years and the total assessment by 26 percent. He claimed
that the assessors based this “massive increase” in valuation of the subject property for
the fiscal year at issue primarily upon the sale of 89 Lothrop Street on October 27, 2022,
for $2.9 million, which he considered an inadequate sample size to establish a market
price. He asserted that 89 Lothrop Street is a “magnificent property” that is “very different”
from and “far superior to” the subject property, with a larger living space and land area,
as well as greater ocean frontage.
The appellant pointed to nearby 79 Lothrop Street, which sold for $1,000,000 on
August 2, 2021, and 110 Lothrop Street, which sold for $1,400,000 on October 14, 2022,
as more appropriate comparable-sale properties. The appellant made no adjustments to
these properties to account for differences between these properties and the subject
property. While the appellant did not supply property record cards for these properties,
one of his written submissions indicated that 79 Lothrop Street has four bedrooms and
three bathrooms, and 110 Lothrop Street has four bedrooms and three-and-a-half
bathrooms.
ATB 2026-327

The appellant testified that he has not made improvements to the subject property,
but has had to deal with various issues as the subject home ages. He stressed numerous
issues with the condition of the subject home, among them outdated plumbing, heating,
and electrical systems; wear and tear from the ocean; old kitchens and bathrooms;
uninsulated, single-pane original windows that amplify the cost of heating the subject
home and noise from nearby heavy traffic; and deterioration over the years. He estimated
that addressing these issues will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, but he admitted
this was a self-estimate and not based on quotes from a contractor.
The appellant provided photographs depicting some of these alleged deficiencies.
Though he admitted to a view of the ocean from the back of the subject home, the
appellant asserted that his view was not as good as the view from other houses and that
he does not have access to the ocean from the subject property, unlike other houses.
Highlighting the increased oceanic vulnerability of coastal properties such as the
subject property due to climate change, the appellant noted that the subject property’s
seawall, though not the subject home, was badly damaged during a storm several years
ago, with nine out of ten granite slabs, each weighing thousands of pounds, strewn about
on the beach.
The excerpt from Churchill Properties listed a median price for Beverly single-
family home sales of $695,000 for 2023, based upon eighty-one properties sold, and of
$705,000 for 2024, based upon eighty-five properties sold.
The appellant’s opinion of value for the fiscal year at issue was $1,421,300.
ATB 2026-328

III. The appellee’s case
In addition to their own testimony, the assessors offered the requisite jurisdictional
documents into evidence.1 According to the assessors, the subject property receives a
permanent 10-percent land adjustment to account for repairs to the seawall and the
subject property’s location in an area prone to parking disruptions due to ocean gazers.
They noted that the subject property has already received a reduction in assessed value
for the fiscal year at issue and is listed as in fair condition, bringing the value down to
$109 per square foot of living area.
IV. The Board’s findings
Based upon the record in its entirety, and as discussed further in the Opinion, the
Board found that the appellant failed to establish that the fair cash value of the subject
property was less than the assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.
The comparable properties referenced by the appellant lacked critical adjustments
to account for differences between those properties and the subject property, just as the
excerpt from Churchill Properties provided no constructive details from which the Board
could glean an overassessment. Likewise, the appellant’s speculative assertions of cost
for deficiencies and the impact of climate change provided no useful information from
which the Board could determine a reduction in assessed value.
Testimony and photographs concerning the condition of the subject property failed
to establish any correlation with a reduction in fair cash value for the subject property for
the fiscal year at issue. The absence of any other photographs of the subject property
and its view of the ocean was informing in itself, underscoring the appellant’s reluctance
1 The assessors offered an appraisal report into evidence, but this was disallowed by the Board due to the absence of
the appraisal report’s author at the hearing.
ATB 2026-329

to 	acknowledge 	the 	subject 	property’s 	prime 	waterfront 	location. 	Conversely, 	the
assessors have provided the appellant with an ongoing 10-percent land adjustment and
previously granted a reduction in value for the subject property for the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee.
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 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, 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)). Here, the appellant provided no evidence of flaws or errors
in the assessors’ method of valuation and failed to present affirmative evidence of
ATB 2026-330

overvaluation. See Fox v. Assessors of Longmeadow, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and
Reports 2021-479, 483 (finding that evidence “of any quantifiable impact on the subject
property’s fair cash value was critically lacking”).
Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within a reasonable
time of the assessment date generally contain probative evidence for determining the fair
cash value of the property at issue. Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB
Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 400, aff'd, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008) (Rule
1:28 decision).
The Board considered the information and purportedly comparable properties
submitted by the appellant but found that this evidence was not useful for determining the
fair cash value of the subject property. See North American Philips Lighting Corp. v.
Assessors of Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 297-299 (1984). Critically, the appellant failed to
account for differences between the comparable properties and the subject property or
even provide property record cards for the comparable properties. “Adjustments must be
made to . . . sales data to account for differences between the subject property and the
properties offered for comparison.” Doherty v. Assessors of Lee, Mass. ATB Findings
of Fact and Reports 2013-174, 181 (citing Lareau v. Assessors of Norwell, Mass. ATB
Findings of Fact and Reports 2010-879, 889-90).
Additionally, the appellant did not establish a connection between alleged inferior
amenities of the subject property compared to neighboring properties and a consequent
reduction in fair cash value of the subject property. The speculative costs for deficiencies
and the impact of climate change were similarly unpersuasive. See, e.g., Abuzahra v.
Assessors of Rowley, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-1514, 1522
ATB 2026-331

(finding that taxpayers failed to meet their burden of proving overvaluation “because they
failed to quantify the effects of wetlands or topographical issues on the value of their lots”);
Durgin and Chojnacki-Durgin v. Assessors of Dudley, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact
and Reports 2021-469, 477 (“The appellants relied upon speculation, unadjusted sales
comparisons, and hearsay.”).
Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that the appellant failed to sustain his
burden of proving that the fair cash value of the subject property was lower than its
assessed value for the fiscal year at issue and issued a decision in favor of the appellee.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By:
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest:
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-332