Concerned Citizens for Springfield, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of the City of Springfield (August 14, 2008)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD




CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR       v.     BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
SPRINGFIELD, INC.                   THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD


Docket No. F288515                  Promulgated:
							 August 14, 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 in the City of Springfield owned by and assessed to the appellant under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2007.
	Commissioner Egan ("Presiding Commissioner") heard the appeal under G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and issued a single-member 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 1.32. 
	
Russell Seelig, pro se, for the appellant.
	Alesia Days, Esq. for the appellee. 


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT

	On the basis of the testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.
	On January 1, 2006, Concerned Citizens For Springfield, Inc. ("appellant") was the assessed owner of condominium unit 91 2B located at 95-59 Longhill Street in the City of Springfield ("subject unit").  The unit is a residential condominium in the Longhill Gardens complex. The subject unit has two bedrooms and one bathroom and is located in a three-story, walk-up, brick building which was built in 1950.    
	For fiscal year 2007, the Board of Assessors of Springfield ("assessors") valued the subject unit at $24,000 and assessed a tax thereon, which the appellant paid timely, at a rate of $16.04 per thousand, for a total amount of $384.96.  The appellant timely filed an Application for Abatement with the assessors on January 23, 2007.  On April 10, 2007, the assessors denied the application.  On May 15, 2007, the appellant seasonably filed a Petition under the Formal Procedure with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  Based on these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.   
	The subject unit was part of a complex of buildings which contained 211 units.  These units, which had been apartments, became condominiums in 1987.  The subject unit was purchased by the appellant in 2005 from the City of Springfield during a request for proposals ("RFP") procedure.  The unit was purchased along with four other units for $1,000 each, plus the outstanding condo fees for the units of $27,196.58, for a total purchase price of $32,196.58.    
	The appellant presented its case through the testimony of Russell Seelig, secretary of the corporation, and through the introduction into evidence of a valuation analysis, photographs, a violation report, lead testing results, a brochure and a quitclaim deed.  Mr. Seelig testified that on January 1, 2006, the unit was vacant and not rentable.  He further testified that at the time of assessment some of the units were habitable.  He explained that the buildings, which made up the complex, were built on a site that was once a landfill, and after the buildings were built, the land settled and caused extensive damage to the buildings.  The appellant contended that the subject unit was overvalued because there was lead paint in the common areas of the building, as well as litter, broken locks and missing screens.  Mr. Seelig testified that the fair cash value of the subject unit should be $1,000, the price paid to purchase the unit in 2005. 
The appellee presented its case through the testimony of Stephen O'Malley, chairman of the assessors, and by the introduction of documents into evidence including: jurisdictional documents; a listing of units in the complex that had been sold; and property record cards for the units sold.  Mr. O'Malley testified that on November 2, 2004, there was a sale of 177 units in the complex.  These units sold for $5,402,040 creating a price per unit of $30,520.  He also presented evidence that in 2005 there were six sales of units in the complex.
Unit	Date of Sale	Price	
71-2C	8/30/2005	$19,200	
75-1A	8/30/2005	$20,000	
83-2B	5/19/2005	$19,000	
87-2B	12/1/2005	$22,000	
93-OA	11/1/2005	$20,900	
93-OB	1/6/2005	$12,000	

These units were all sold by Longhill Omega, LLC.  Mr. O'Malley testified that, although at the time of the hearing the property was distressed and had been foreclosed, the units were occupied in 2005. 
	The Presiding Commissioner found that the sales presented by the appellee were comparable to the subject unit.  The units were all sold in 2005 for values much higher than $1,000 and were sold for prices similar to the subject unit's assessed value of $24,000.  The Presiding Commissioner also found that the purchase of the unit through the RFP process was not a transaction that was free from compulsion and was not a reliable indication of the fair market value of the property.  Finally, the Presiding Commissioner found that the common area issues raised by the appellant were universal throughout the building, not unique to the subject property, and equally relevant to the assessors' comparable properties.  On this basis, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proving that the subject unit was overvalued for fiscal year 2007 and, at any rate, the assessors amply supported the assessments.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued a decision for the appellee.

OPINION
Assessors are required to assess all real and personal property at its fair cash value as of the first day of January preceding the fiscal year at issue.  G.L. c. 59,  §§ 11 and 38.  The fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree if both were fully informed about the property and were under no compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
	The burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove a right to an abatement of taxes.  Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).  The assessed value is presumed valid unless the taxpayer meets the burden of proving otherwise.  Id.  The taxpayer may present evidence of the fair cash value of the property or prove an error in the valuation method.  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 600 (1984).
	In the present appeal, the appellant only presented evidence and testimony of the cost to purchase the subject unit and of the condition of the subject unit.  The appellant presented no evidence of comparable sales or other competent evidence of the fair cash value of the subject unit.  The Presiding Commissioner found that the sale of the subject unit was not a transaction that was free from compulsion because it was sold as part of a bulk sale through an RFP process.  In contrast, appellee provided six comparable sales of units in the same complex as the subject unit from 2005.  The Presiding Commissioner found that these sales supported the value attributed to the subject property by the assessors for the fiscal year at issue.  Evidence of sales of comparable properties in the area is a strong indicator of the fair cash value of a property.  Foxboro Associates v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982).  
On this basis, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant did not meet its burden of proving that the assessors overvalued the subject property for fiscal year 2007.  The Presiding Commissioner also found and ruled that the assessors amply supported the assessment.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner decided this appeal for the appellee.         

  					 	THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD

                    By: ______________________________                 
					 	 Nancy T. Egan, Commissioner






	


	

ATB 2008 - 1073