Robert S. & Cynthia Jo Null Goodof v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Needham (May 24, 2011)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


RICHARD S. & 	             v.		BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
CYNTHIA JO NULL GOODOF		          THE TOWN OF NEEDHAM

Docket No.  F299670 			     Promulgated:
		  						May 24, 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 Needham ("assessors" or "appellee") to abate taxes on certain real estate owned by and assessed to Richard S. and Cynthia Jo Null Goodof ("appellants") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2009 ("fiscal year at issue").
	Commissioner Egan heard this appeal and was joined by Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa, Rose, and Mulhern in the 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.

	Richard S. Goodof, pro se, for the appellants.
	Chip Davis, assessor, for the appellee.

               
FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	Based on the testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of this appeal, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2008, the appellants were the assessed owners of a 12,140-square-foot-parcel of real estate, improved with a two-story, single-family dwelling located at 57 Birds Hill Avenue in Needham ("subject property").  For fiscal year 2009, the assessors valued the subject property at $957,800, and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $9.96 per thousand, in the total amount of $9,539.69.  The appellants timely paid the tax due without incurring interest.  On January 29, 2009, the appellants timely filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors.  The assessors denied the appellants' abatement application on February 6, 2009.  The appellants timely filed their appeal with the Board on April 30, 2009.  Based on the foregoing, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal. 
The dwelling on the subject property was built in 1996.  It is a Colonial-style dwelling with 3,000 square feet of finished living area above-grade. It has eight rooms in total, including four bedrooms.  The subject property also has three full bathrooms and one half bathroom.  Additional features include a three-car garage, two fireplaces, a 9-foot-by-5-foot open front porch, and a deck.  The subject property has an additional 728 square feet of finished living area in the basement. 
 The appellants purchased the subject property in 1999 for $601,500.  In 2007, the appellants added a small addition and made several renovations to the subject property.  The renovations included updating the kitchen and master bath and adding a bathroom in the basement.  The appellants also added a third garage bay along with the 9-foot-by-5-foot front porch.  The addition added 160 square feet to the subject property's finished living area.  The total cost of the addition and renovations was $250,000.  
The appellants, who presented their case through documentary submissions along with the testimony of Mr. Goodof, asserted that the assessed value of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value.  In an attempt to support their assertions, the appellants introduced evidence comparing the assessed value of the subject property to the assessed values of other nearby properties.  Specifically, the appellants introduced information and property record cards for four purportedly comparable properties.  All of the properties were, like the subject property, located in neighborhood "305" for assessing purposes; three of them were located on the same street as the subject property.  The appellants' comparable properties featured dwellings which were constructed between 1995 and 2007 and ranged in size from 3,291 square feet to 4,705 square feet.  Their assessed values for fiscal year 2009 ranged from $885,300 to $1,294,300.  
The appellants' primary argument was that the subject property was overvalued because its dwelling was valued at a higher per-square-foot value than their four selected comparable properties.  The appellants argued that the subject property's higher per-square-foot valuation was not warranted, particularly considering that at least one of the comparables - located at 105 Birds Hill Avenue - was much newer construction.  Additionally, the appellants contended that the dwelling located at 63 Birds Hill Avenue, which was built in 1995 by the same builder who built the subject property and renovated in 2007 by the same contractor who renovated the subject property, was valued at approximately 15 percent less per square foot than the subject property's dwelling.  The appellants contended that the building value of the subject property as assessed did not reflect the fact that only 20 percent of the subject property was updated in 2007.  The appellants' opinion of the subject property's fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue was $875,000.
The assessors presented their case-in-chief through the testimony of assessor Chip Davis, and through the submission of exhibits containing a comparable-assessment analysis and a comparable-sales analysis, along with property record cards for each of their selected comparable properties.  The assessors' comparable-assessment analysis featured assessment data for four comparable properties located, like the subject property, in neighborhood "305" for assessment purposes.  The dwellings on the assessors' comparable-assessment properties were built between 1998 and 2000, and ranged in size from 2,969 square feet to 3,186 square feet.  The fiscal year 2009 assessed values of the assessors' comparable-assessment properties ranged from $964,400 to $978,300.  
The assessors' comparable-sales analysis contained five properties which sold in Needham between March and August of 2007.  Two of the properties were located in neighborhood "305."  Each of the assessors' comparable-sales properties featured Colonial-style dwellings which ranged in size from 2,969 square feet to 3,351 square feet.  The sales prices ranged from $985,000 to $1,090,000.  
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found that the appellants did not meet their burden of proving that the assessed value of the subject property was greater than its fair cash value.  The appellants' primary argument was that the subject property's dwelling was assessed at a higher per-square-foot value than their four selected comparable properties.  However, with finished living areas ranging from 3,291 square feet to 4,705 square feet, the appellants' four purportedly comparable properties were larger than the subject property; certain of them were significantly larger. In making their argument, the appellants overlooked the familiar principle of real estate valuation that smaller dwellings often have a higher per-square-foot value than similar but larger dwellings.  The Board therefore did not find the appellants' evidence to be a persuasive indication that the assessed value of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value as of the relevant date of assessment.  
In contrast, the assessors presented ample, credible evidence in support of their assessment.  The assessors presented sales data for five sales in Needham which occurred close in time to the relevant date of assessment. The assessors' comparable-sales properties were Colonial-style dwellings which ranged in size from 2,969 square feet to 3,351 square feet, and the Board found that they were sufficiently comparable to the subject property to provide probative evidence of its fair cash value.  The sales prices of the assessors' comparable-sales properties ranged from $985,000 to $1,090,000, a range which, even at its low-end, exceeded the subject property's assessed value of $957,800.  The Board found the assessors' comparable-sales analysis to be persuasive evidence that the subject property's assessed value did not exceed its fair cash value.
In addition, the assessors offered a comparable-assessment analysis which the Board found provided further support for the assessment.  The four comparable-assessment properties offered by the assessors were, like the subject property, located in neighborhood "305" for assessment purposes, and their dwellings were close in age and size to the subject property's dwelling.  The Board therefore found that they were sufficiently comparable to the subject property to provide probative evidence of its value.  The fiscal year 2009 assessed values of the assessors' comparable-assessment properties ranged from $964,400 to $978,300; like the range of prices that the assessors offered in their comparable assessment analysis, this range, even at its low end, exceeded the subject property's assessed value of $957,800.  The Board found that the assessors' comparable-assessment analysis provided additional evidence that the subject property was not overvalued.  
Thus, on the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found and ruled that the appellants did not meet their burden of proving that the assessed value of the subject property was greater than its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee.  
			  
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 appellants have 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 taxpayers . . . prov[e] the contrary.'" General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598 (1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
  The fair cash value of property may be determined by recent sales of comparable properties in the market.   Actual sales generally "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. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982); New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 469 (1981); First National Stores, Inc. v. Assessors of Somerville, 358 Mass. 554, 560 (1971).   Further, 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.  Lattuca v. Robsham, 442 Mass. 205, 216 (2004).  "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., 383 Mass. at 470. 
 Additionally, evidence of the assessed values of comparable properties may provide probative evidence of fair cash value.  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.   However, "[r]eliable comparable sales data will ordinarily trump comparable assessment information for purposes of finding a property's fair cash value."  Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-321, 403,  aff'd, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008).
In the present appeal, the appellants introduced assessment data and property record cards for four properties located in the same neighborhood as the subject property.  Their primary argument was that the subject property's dwelling was assessed at a higher per-square-foot value than their four purportedly comparable properties.  However, the appellants' comparable properties had larger finished living areas than the subject property, certain of them significantly larger.  As it has in past appeals, the Board recognized the familiar principle of real estate valuation that smaller properties often have a higher per-square-foot value than similar but larger properties.  See Ricky L. Seto v. Assessors of Quincy, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2006-585, 590  ("In making this finding and ruling, [the Board] also recognized that all other things being equal, smaller condominium units ordinarily have a higher value per square foot than larger ones").  See also appraisal institute, the appraisal of real estate 212 (13th ed. 2008) ("Size differences can affect value . . . .  Generally, as size increases, unit prices decrease.  Conversely, as size decreases, unit prices increase.").  Because it is to be generally expected that smaller homes will have greater per-square-foot values than similar larger homes, the Board did not find the appellants' arguments to be a persuasive indication that the subject property was overvalued.
The assessors, for their part, introduced ample, credible comparable-assessment and comparable-sales data supporting the assessment.  The Board found and ruled that the properties submitted for comparison by the assessors were sufficiently comparable to the subject property to provide probative evidence of its fair cash value.  Moreover, the Board found and ruled that the range of sale prices and assessed values encompassed in the assessors' analyses provided reliable evidence that the assessed value of the subject property did not exceed its fair cash value.  Accordingly, on the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found and ruled that the appellants did not meet their burden of proving that the assessed value of the subject property was greater than its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  The Board therefore issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal. 

  APPELLATE TAX BOARD


		  		   By: 				_______________
  Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman

A true copy,

Attest:		______	__________
	               Clerk of the Board

ATB 2011-433