Patrowicz, Stephen J. & Agnes E. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Stow (July 9, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
STEPHEN J. AND AGNES E.
PATROWICZ
v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE
TOWN OF STOW
Docket No. F348519 	Promulgated:
July 9, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	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 	Stow 	(“assessors” 	or
“appellee”) 	to 	abate 	a 	tax 	on 	certain 	real 	estate 	owned 	by 	and
assessed 	to 	Stephen 	J. 	and 	Agnes 	E. 	Patrowicz 	(“appellants”) 	for
fiscal year 2023 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	heard 	this 	appeal. 	Commissioners 	Good,
Elliott, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	him 	in 	a 	decision 	for 	the
appellee.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request 	by 	the 	appellee 	under 	G.L. 	c. 	58A, 	§ 	13 	and 	831 	CMR
1.34.
Stephen J. Patrowicz, pro se, for the appellants.
Kristen Fox, assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2025-227

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	the 	testimony 	and 	exhibits 	entered 	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, 	2022, 	the 	relevant 	date 	of 	valuation 	and
assessment 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	the 	appellants 	were 	the
assessed 	owners 	of 	property 	located 	at 	3 	Middlemost 	Way 	in 	the
Town 	of 	Stow, 	improved 	with 	a 	single-family 	home 	featuring 	three
bedrooms 	and 	three 	bathrooms, 	with 	a 	living 	area 	of 	2,803 	square
feet (“subject property”).
The 	assessors 	valued 	the 	subject 	property 	at 	$695,000 	for
the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	A 	tax 	was 	assessed 	thereon 	in 	the
amount 	of 	$18.13 	per 	$1,000, 	for 	a 	tax 	due 	of 	$12,923.97,
inclusive 	of 	the 	Community 	Preservation 	Act 	surcharge. 	The
appellants 	paid 	the 	tax 	due 	without 	incurring 	interest. 	The
appellants 	filed 	an 	abatement 	application 	on 	January 	27, 	2023,
which 	the 	assessors 	denied 	on 	March 	27, 	2023. 	The 	appellants
filed a petition with the Board on June 5, 2023.
Based 	on 	these 	facts, 	the Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	it 	had
jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
II. The appellants’ case
The 	appellants 	presented 	their 	own 	testimony 	and 	a 	written
analysis. 	They 	chiefly 	argued 	that 	the 	assessment 	for 	the 	fiscal
ATB 2025-228

year 	at 	issue 	had 	risen 	dramatically 	from 	the 	prior 	fiscal 	year,
an 	approximately 	22 	percent 	increase, 	and 	that 	such 	an 	increase
imperils their ability to afford the property taxes.
The 	appellants 	maintained 	that 	the 	subject 	property 	had 	not
been 	renovated 	in 	the 	past 	thirty 	years; 	that 	the 	bathrooms 	were
forty-three 	years 	old 	and 	dated; 	and 	that 	the 	kitchen, 	floors,
and 	walls 	had 	not 	been 	updated 	since 	1989. 	The 	appellants
included 	numerous 	photographs 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	to 	support
their contentions as to the subject property’s condition.
The 	appellants 	offered 	three 	sales 	of 	properties 	located
within 	a 	few 	miles 	of 	the 	subject 	property, 	but 	they 	did 	not
include 	property 	record 	cards 	or 	adjustments 	to 	account 	for
differences 	with 	the 	subject 	property. 	Additionally, 	on 	cross-
examination 	the 	appellants 	conceded 	that 	they 	had 	mistakenly
used 	assessed 	values 	and 	not 	sale 	prices 	for 	these 	three
properties. 	The 	purchase 	prices 	of 	these 	three 	properties 	were
$526,000, 	$530,000, 	and 	$700,000, 	with 	all 	three 	sales 	occurring
in 2021.
The 	appellants 	also 	offered 	three 	assessments 	of 	properties
located 	in 	the 	neighborhood 	of 	the 	subject 	property. 	These
properties 	were 	assessed 	at 	$501,700, 	$546,200, 	and 	$562,600 	for
the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	As 	with 	the 	three 	sale 	properties, 	the
appellants 	did 	not 	include 	property 	record 	cards 	or 	adjustments
to account for differences with the subject property.
ATB 2025-229

Based 	on 	their 	comparable 	sales 	and 	comparable 	assessments
analysis, 	the 	appellants 	contended 	that 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of
the subject property was $585,000 for the fiscal year at issue.
III. The appellee’s case
The 	appellee 	presented 	jurisdictional 	documents, 	testimony,
and 	a 	written 	analysis. 	The 	appellee 	testified 	that 	the 	various
items 	raised 	by 	the 	appellants 	concerning 	the 	condition 	of 	the
subject 	property 	had 	been 	taken 	into 	account 	on 	the 	property
record card.
The 	appellee 	used 	the 	appellants’ 	sale 	and 	assessment
comparables 	to 	support 	the 	assessed 	value. 	The 	appellee 	adjusted
the 	sale 	prices 	to 	account 	for 	differences 	between 	the 	three
sale 	properties 	and 	the 	subject 	property 	to 	derive 	indicated
sale 	prices 	ranging 	from 	$750,500 	to 	$782,000. 	Similarly, 	the
three 	assessment 	properties 	were 	adjusted 	by 	the 	appellee 	to
derive 	indicated 	values 	ranging 	from 	$711,000 	to 	$747,000. 	The
appellee 	provided 	property 	record 	cards 	for 	these 	sale 	and
assessment 	properties, 	as 	well 	as 	a 	grid 	detailing 	the
adjustments to the sale prices and assessment values.
The 	appellee 	also 	noted 	that 	several 	amenities 	added
significant 	value 	to 	the 	subject 	property 	compared 	to 	the 	sale
and 	assessment 	properties, 	including 	a 	detached 	garage 	with 	a
finished 	area 	located 	above, 	an 	in-ground 	pool, 	and 	several
outbuildings.
ATB 2025-230

IV. The Board’s findings
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	presented, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled
that 	the 	appellants 	failed 	to 	establish 	that 	they 	were 	entitled
to an abatement.
The 	Board 	found 	that 	the 	appellants’ 	comparable 	properties
- 	with 	no 	adjustments 	and 	no 	property 	record 	cards 	provided 	–
lacked 	probative 	worth. 	The 	appellants’ 	chief 	concern 	was
affordability, 	an 	equitable 	request 	for 	which 	the 	Board 	cannot
grant 	relief. 	Conversely, 	the 	appellee 	presented 	credible
adjusted 	values 	using 	the 	appellants’ 	own 	comparables, 	which
supported 	values 	even 	higher 	than 	the 	subject 	property’s
assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellants
did 	not 	meet 	their 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	fair 	cash 	value 	of
the 	subject 	property 	was 	lower 	than 	the 	assessed 	value 	for 	the
fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	and 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellee 	in
this appeal.
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 	will
agree 	if 	both 	are 	fully 	informed 	and 	under 	no 	compulsion. 	Boston
Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
ATB 2025-231

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)).
The 	Board 	considered 	the 	information 	and 	comparable
properties 	submitted 	by 	the 	appellants 	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 	appellants 	failed 	to 	account 	for 	any 	differences 	between 	the
comparable 	properties 	and 	the 	subject 	property. 	See Graham 	v.
ATB 2025-232

Assessors 	of 	West 	Tisbury, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and
Reports 	2007-321, 	402 	(“The 	assessments 	in 	a 	comparable
assessment 	analysis, 	like 	the 	sale 	prices 	in 	a 	comparable 	sales
analysis, 	must 	. 	. 	. 	be 	adjusted 	to account for differences with
the 	subject.”), aff'd, 73 	Mass. 	App. 	Ct. 	1107 	(2008) (Rule 	1:28
Decision); Lupacchino 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Southborough, 	Mass. 	ATB
Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	2008-1253, 	1269 	(“[W]ithout
appropriate 	adjustments 	. 	. 	. 	the 	assessed 	values 	of
[comparable] 	properties 	did 	not 	provide 	reliable 	indicator[s] 	of
the 	subject’s 	fair 	cash 	value.”). 	Moreover, 	the 	assessors 	made
relevant 	adjustments 	to 	the 	appellants’ 	comparable 	properties
and 	credibly 	arrived 	at 	indicated 	values 	for 	the 	subject
property that were higher than its assessed value.
Further, 	the 	relief 	sought 	by 	the 	appellants 	was 	ultimately
of 	an 	equitable 	nature, 	based 	upon 	their 	argument 	as 	to
affordability 	concerns. 	The 	Board 	is 	not 	authorized 	to
grant equitable relief; 	rather, 	it 	may 	act 	only 	to 	the 	extent
that 	it 	has 	express 	or 	implied 	statutory 	authority 	to 	do 	so.
See, 	e.g., Commissioner 	of 	Revenue 	v. 	A.W. 	Chesterton 	Co., 	406
Mass. 	466, 	467-68 	(1990); 	see 	also Commissioner 	of 	Revenue 	v.
Marr 	Scaffolding 	Co., 	Inc., 	414 	Mass. 	489, 	494 	(1993). 	The
Board’s 	jurisdiction 	in 	this 	matter 	was 	limited 	to 	whether 	the
assessed 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	exceeded 	its 	fair 	cash
value 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	See 	Black 	Rock 	Golf 	Club,
ATB 2025-233

LLC 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Hingham, 	81 	Mass. 	App. 	Ct. 	408, 	413 	(2012)
(holding 	that 	“[m]unicipal 	assessors 	carry 	‘a 	statutory 	and
constitutional 	obligation 	to 	assess 	all 	real 	property 	at
full and fair cash 	value’” 	and 	that 	“[a] 	taxpayer 	may 	challenge
an 	assessment 	as 	excessive 	by 	petition 	to 	the 	municipal
assessors 	for 	an 	abatement” 	and 	“[i]f 	the 	assessors 	deny 	the
abatement, 	the 	aggrieved 	taxpayer 	may 	appeal 	to 	the 	Appellate
Tax Board”).
Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled 	that 	the 	appellants
failed 	to 	meet 	their 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	subject 	property
was 	overvalued 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue 	and 	issued 	a
decision for the appellee in this appeal.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: _____ 	________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: 	________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-234