Stein B. Jacobsen v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Concord (April 18, 2008)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD

STEIN B. JACOBSEN 			v.	   BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
   THE TOWN OF CONCORD

Docket No. F286978				   Promulgated:
							   April 18, 2008

	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 appellee to abate taxes on real estate located in the Town of Concord, owned by and assessed to appellant under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2006.
	Commissioner Mulhern heard this appeal.  Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Egan and Rose joined him in the decision for the appellee.
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	Stein B. Jacobsen, pro se, for the appellant.
	Evelyn Masson, town appraiser, for the appellee.
	

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	On January 1, 2005, Stein B. Jacobsen ("appellant") was the assessed owner of a parcel of real estate improved with a single-family home located at 531 Monument Street, Concord, Massachusetts ("the subject property"). For fiscal year 2006, the Board of Assessors of the Town of Concord ("assessors") valued the subject property at $970,300, and assessed a tax thereon at the rate of $10.23 per thousand, in the amount of $9,926.17.  Appellant paid the tax due without incurring interest.  On January 31, 2006, appellant timely filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors.  The application was denied on April 27, 2006.  On July 25, 2006, appellant seasonably filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  On this basis, the Board found that it had jurisdiction over the subject appeal.  
The subject property is a 2.4-acre parcel of real estate located on the corner of Monument Street and Red Coat Lane and is improved with a split-level, contemporary house.  The parcel is square in shape and has substantial classified "wetlands" located to the rear of the parcel.  The house is a "Deck style" home built in 1968 and has seven rooms, including three bedrooms as well as two-and-one-half baths.  The home has a total gross living area of 1,771 square feet.  The living room has sliding doors that lead to a rear deck and, as with most Deck homes, the ceilings are cathedral height and are covered with cedar wood.  The lower level of the home has walkout access to the rear yard and is finished with a family room, office area and a half-bath.  The family room also has a fireplace.  The unfinished area of the lower level houses a two-car garage and a utility room that is also used for storage.  
The subject property is located in the north-central section of Concord and is just one mile north of Concord center and one-half mile from the Minuteman National Park.  Located across from the subject property is the Fenn School, an elite boys' day school for grades four through nine.  The school is located on a 6.5-acre parcel of land that also includes four private homes for school staff.  The subject property's location is very desirable and is recognized as a premium area in Concord, given its large amounts of open space and development-restricted land, together with its proximity to Concord center and other landmarks.
	In support of his contention that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2006, appellant presented a self-prepared comparable sales/assessment analysis.  In his analysis, appellant first compared the subject property to 86 Farmers Cliff Road which, according to appellant, sold on March 24, 2004 for $655,000. Appellant argued that this sale was a proper comparison to the subject property because both houses were situated on similarly sized lots, and were of similar construction and design. He acknowledged, however, that 86 Farmers Cliff Road is located further from Concord center than the subject property.  
To account for the location difference, appellant presented a comparison of two sales of properties similar in gross living area and sale dates, one located on the same street as the subject property and one located nearer Concord center.  According to appellant, the in-town property sold for $740,000 and the Monument Street property sold for only $650,000, fourteen percent less.  Appellant therefore concluded that properties nearer Concord center are valued at between ten and thirty percent higher than similar properties located further from town.  Based on his findings, appellant then suggested that the Farmers Cliff Road sale price be adjusted twenty percent to account for its location further from Concord center in comparison to the subject property.  This resulted in an adjusted sale price of $786,000 which, according to appellant, more closely reflected the subject property's fair market value.
	Appellant also attempted to prove that the subject property was overvalued by comparing its assessment to the property located at 90 Barretts Mill Road.  According to appellant, he purchased the subject property in November, 1988 for $450,000 and 90 Barretts Mill Road sold in June, 1989 for $462,000.  Appellant then testified that for fiscal year 2001, the two properties were comparably assessed at $517,300 and $521,600, respectively.  According to appellant, for fiscal year 2006, 90 Barretts Mill Road was assessed at $830,700, an 80% increase from its 1989 sale price.  The subject property, however, was assessed at $970,300, a 116% increase from its 1988 sale price.  Appellant argued that because both properties sold for similar amounts, were assessed at similar values for fiscal year 2001, were in close proximity to each other, and were approximately the same distance from Concord center, they should have appreciated at the same rate.  Based on this analysis, appellant calculated a value of $809,123 for the subject property for fiscal year 2006.
	In defense of their assessment, the assessors relied on the testimony and sales-comparison analysis of Evelyn Masson, the town appraiser.  In her analysis, Ms. Masson cited three sales of properties that she deemed comparable to the subject property.  The sale dates for these properties ranged from July 29, 2004 to December 13, 2004, with sale prices ranging from $939,000 to $1,025,000. The properties' gross living areas varied from approximately 2,022 square feet to 2,538 square feet, and their parcels had areas between 0.47 acres to 1.86 acres.
Noting that all three sales occurred within six months of the relevant assessment date, Ms. Masson determined that no adjustment for time was necessary.  She also determined that the comparable properties required no adjustment for condition as all were built in the same time frame as the subject property.  She did, however, make adjustments for the variance in size, at $50 per square foot, and also the number of bedrooms, bathrooms and garage.  She also adjusted all three sales for their location.  Sales number 1 and number 2 were located closer to Concord center and were adjusted up one percent.  Sale number 3 was much further from the center and located on a busy cut-through street and was adjusted up five percent.  Finally, sale number 2 was adjusted up for its much smaller land size, 0.46 acres compared to the subject property's 2.42 acres.  Ms. Mason arrived at adjusted sale prices for her comparable properties that ranged from $967,600 to $1,041,950.  The assessors argued that these adjusted sale prices supported the subject property's fiscal year 2006 assessment.
Based on the evidence presented, the Board found that appellant's valuation methodologies were not sufficiently reliable to establish the fair cash value of the subject property and were insufficient to prove that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2006.  First, the Board found that appellant failed to establish comparability between his chosen comparable sale property and the subject property.  The Board further found that except for the location adjustment, appellant made no adjustments for known differences between his one comparable property and the subject property.  Further, the Board found that appellant's location factor, derived from the sales of just two properties, did not adequately reflect market conditions.  
Appellant also used just one property in his assessment comparison.  Beyond a showing that the assessments of the subject and one other property increased at different rates, the Board found that appellant failed to take into consideration other factors, including the properties' specific characteristics.  Moreover, the Board found that appellant failed to prove how the assessment of one other property helped to establish the subject property's fair market value.  Therefore, the Board found this evidence to have little or no probative value.
On this basis, the Board found and ruled that appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the assessed value of the subject property for fiscal year 2006 exceeded its fair cash value as of January 1, 2005. Accordingly, the Board decided this appeal and issued a decision for the appellee.

OPINION
The assessors have a statutory and constitutional obligation to assess all real property at its full and fair cash value.  G.L. c. 59, § 38; Coomey v. Assessors of Sandwich, 367 Mass. 836, 837 (1975).  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 (1954).
	The assessment is presumed valid unless the taxpayers sustain the burden of proving otherwise.  Schlaiker v. Board of Assessors of Great Barrington, 356 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).  Accordingly, the burden of proof is upon appellant to make out his right as a matter of law to an abatement of the tax.  Id.  Appellant must show that the assessed valuation of his property was improper.  See Foxboro Associates v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 691 (1982).
	In the present appeal, appellant tried to show that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2006 by comparing the subject property to a single sale, and also by comparing the subject property's percentage increase in assessment to that of one other property.  The Board found, however, that appellant's analyses were flawed and unreliable.  With respect to appellant's sale comparison, the Board found that appellant failed to establish comparability between the subject property and his one sale property.  The Board further found that, absent a location adjustment, appellant failed to account for differences that existed between the subject property and his chosen comparable.  With respect to appellant's location adjustment, the Board found that a comparison of the sale prices of just two properties was not sufficient to support appellant's percentage adjustment.  "An adjustment derived from a single pair of sales is not necessarily indicative, just as a single sale does not necessarily reflect market value."  The Appraisal Institute, the appraisal of real 438 (12th Ed., 2001). 
The Board further found that appellant's purported assessment analysis proved little more than that the subject property and his chosen comparable property had varying assessments during the period of time from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2006.  Appellant failed to establish comparability between the subject property and his chosen comparable property.  Furthermore, appellant failed to prove how this assessment data reflected the subject property's fair market value.  
Based on the foregoing facts, the Board found and ruled that appellant did not meet his burden of proving that the assessed value of the subject property for fiscal year 2006 exceeded its fair cash value as of January 1, 2005.  Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.


    THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD

				By: ___________________________________
					Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman
					
A true copy,


Attest: ____________________________
		  Clerk of the Board

ATB 2008-480