Barbara C. Berrigan v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Greenfield (June 5, 2007)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



BARBARA C. BERRIGAN			v.	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
							THE TOWN OF GREENFIELD

Docket No. F284500				Promulgated:
							June 5, 2007


	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 assessed under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2006.
	Chairman Hammond ("Presiding Commissioner") heard the appeal and, pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and 831 CMR 1.30, issued a single-member decision for the appellant.
	These findings of fact and report are promulgated pursuant to a request by the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	Barbara C. Berrigan and John Berrigan, pro se, for the appellant.

	Steven Marston and Audrey Murphy, Assessors, for the appellee.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT

On the basis of exhibits and testimony offered at the hearing of this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.
	On January 1, 2005, Barbara C. Berrigan ("appellant") was the assessed owner of a parcel of real estate located at 77 Hastings Street in the Town of Greenfield ("subject property").  For fiscal year 2006 ("fiscal year at issue"), the Board of Assessors of the Town of Greenfield ("assessors") valued the subject property at $190,900, which included a land value of $44,400 and a building and yard item value of $145,300.  On the basis of the $190,900 assessed value, the appellant was assessed a tax of $3,478.20, which she paid timely.
On January 17, 2006, the appellant timely filed an application for abatement with the assessors.  The assessors denied the application on March 23, 2006, and on June 14, 2006, the appellant seasonably filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found that the Board had jurisdiction over this appeal.
The subject property consists of a 10,032 square-foot parcel of real estate improved with a single-family, "Colonial" style home, which contains 1,566 square feet of living space.  The home was constructed in 1924, and the interior's finished area is comprised of six rooms, including three bedrooms, a living room/kitchen and one full and one half bathrooms.  The home has oil-fired via steam central heating.  
The appellant and her husband, John Berrigan (together, the "Berrigans") maintained at the hearing of this appeal that the subject property was overvalued, and that its value on the relevant valuation date was $176,000, as reflected on appellant's abatement application. To support their assertion, the Berrigans focused primarily on lower assessed values for properties located on their street and surrounding streets within what they considered the subject property's neighborhood of Greenfield. 
In particular, the Berrigans noted that the condition of "VG" or very good was overstated as it applied to the subject dwelling. They further contended that their dwelling was substantially similar in condition to the conditions of properties located at 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, and 83 Hastings Street.  All these properties are of similar style, vintage, and condition.  In all but one instance, the properties offered by the Berrigans as comparable properties carried the condition of "good" on the assessors' property record cards.  The one comparable property that did not have a condition factor of "good" was located at 72 Hastings and carried a condition factor of "average." This comparable property was built in 1927, three years after the subject property.
The Berrigans also offered property record cards and a grid containing relevant data concerning six comparable properties on Hastings Street.  These properties were offered to demonstrate alleged discrepancies in condition factor.  The Berrigans argued, and the assessors agreed, that condition factors ultimately have an influence on value.  The Berrigans asserted that the actual condition of the comparables presented were all reasonably similar in condition to the subject and that, therefore, their condition factors should be similar.  
The Berrigans also argued that a building permit for the subject property, taken out on August 29, 2000 for $15,000, did not have a significant impact on value because the permit was pulled for minor remodeling and nothing of a structural nature occurred.  They further stated that the remodeling was in line with normal maintenance of painting, paneling, and new counter tops. 
The appellee offered no affirmative evidence of value and rested on the presumed validity of the assessment.
Based on the evidence submitted, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant met her burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue.  In particular, the Presiding Commissioner found that the Berrigans demonstrated that the properties cited as comparable to the subject property, which were located on the same street as the subject property and were all reasonably similar in size, age, style and condition, were comparable to the subject property.  Moreover, the Berrigans' evidence, which consisted primarily of property record cards, photographs and a grid, drew a sufficiently detailed comparison between these properties and the subject property to warrant a finding that an abatement was appropriate. The disparity in overall value was derived primarily from varying condition factors, with the comparables assigned a "good" or "average" condition factor while the subject property was designated "very good."  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner adjusted the assessed value of the subject property to account for this disparity.  On this basis, the Presiding Commissioner found that the fair cash value of the subject property was $183,000.  
Based on the foregoing, the Presiding Commissioner ruled that the appellant met her burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued and issued a single-member decision for the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 1A granting an abatement in the amount of $143.93.

OPINION
"All property, real and personal, situated within the commonwealth . . . shall be subject to taxation."  G.L. c. 59, § 2.  The assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value determined as of the first day of January of each year.  G.L. c. 59, §§ 2A and 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 subject 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 [B]oard 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). 
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 Co., 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)). "A taxpayer may show that its property is overvalued by demonstrating that the assessors relied on inaccurate information contained in their property record cards that improperly increased the value of the subject property."  Kelly v. Board of Assessors of Bedford, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-941, 946; see also Olivieri v. Board of Assessors of Egremont, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-950, 955; Mason v. Board of Assessors of Lakeville, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-558, 566.   
Regarding valuation of land and building as separate components of the overall assessment, a taxpayer does not establish the right to an abatement merely by showing that land or building is overvalued.  "The tax on a parcel of land and the building thereon is one tax . . . although for statistical purposes they may be valued separately."  Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Insurance Co., 310 Mass. 300, 317 (1941).  In abatement proceedings, "the question is whether the assessment for the parcel of real estate, including both the land and the structures thereon, is excessive.  The component parts, on which that single assessment is laid, are each open to inquiry and revision by the appellate tribunal in reaching the conclusion whether that single assessment is excessive."  Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921); see also Buckley v. Assessors of Duxbury, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-110, 119; Jernegan v. Assessors of Duxbury, ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-39, 49.  
The appellant introduced evidence primarily challenging the value of the building component of the subject property by introducing evidence of the assessments made on comparable properties in her neighborhood.  "At any hearing relative to the assessed fair cash valuation . . . of property, evidence as to the fair cash valuation . . . at which assessors have assessed other property of a comparable nature . . . shall be admissible."  G.L. c. 58A, § 12B.  The Board found this evidence persuasive and credible to establish the fair cash value of the subject property for the fiscal year at issue.  In contrast, the appellee offered no evidence to challenge or contradict the appellant's analysis.
Based on the evidence presented, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant met her burden of proving that the subject property's overall assessment was excessive.  On this basis, the Presiding Commissioner issued a decision for the appellant in this appeal.
	
						APPELLATE TAX BOARD


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



A true copy,

Attest:	____________________________
		Assistant Clerk of the Board

     The Board notes that the sum of the land and building values recorded on the property record card is $189,700, not the $190,900 assessed value shown on the property record card and the fiscal year 2006 tax bill.

8


ATB 2007-312