203 Summer Street, LLC v. Board of Assessors of the City of Malden (September 17, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
203 SUMMER ST., LLC1 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE CITY OF MALDEN
Docket No. F347910 	Promulgated:
September 17, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	filed 	under 	the 	formal 	procedure 	pursuant
to 	G.L. 	c. 	40, 	§§ 	42A 	through 	42F, 	G.L. 	c. 	83, 	§ 	16E, 	and
G.L. c. 59, 	§§ 	64 	and 	65, 	from 	the 	refusal 	of 	the 	Board 	of
Assessors 	of 	the 	City 	of 	Malden 	(“assessors" 	or 	"appellee") 	to
abate 	water 	and 	sewer 	charges 	reflected 	in 	a 	water/sewer 	bill
issued to Eric Lung on March 9, 2023 (“contested bill”).
Commissioner 	Bernier 	heard 	this 	appeal. 	He 	was 	joined 	by
Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	and 	Commissioners 	Good, 	Elliott, 	and 	Metzer
in the 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 1.34.
Eric Lung, pro se, for the appellant.
Alicia McNeil, Esq., for the appellee.
1 203 Summer St., LLC (“appellant”) is the current owner of 203 Summer Street,
the property relating to the contested matters in this appeal, and Mr. Lung is
signatory for the LLC.
ATB 2025-295

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the
hearing of this appeal, the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the
following findings of fact.
On March 9, 2023, the City of Malden issued to Mr. Lung a
bill in the amount of $17,937.07 for water and sewer charges at
203 Summer Street in Malden (“subject property”). On
April 11, 2023, the appellant filed an abatement application with
the Malden Public Works Commission, which was denied the same day.
The appellant seasonably filed an appeal with the Board on
April 24, 2023. The contested water and sewer charges remain
unpaid. Based on these facts, the Board found and ruled that it
had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
The appellant presented its case through the testimony of
Mr. Lung and his wife, Shuai Lung. The appellant also submitted
various documents, including: correspondence between the attorneys
at the Lungs’ initial purchase of the subject property; copies of
various water and sewer bills from October 2020 through January
2023; a property management contract for the subject property dated
September 9, 2022; an email from Ronnie Tom, Malden water
department, to Yem Lip, dated March 21, 2023; and listings of
Malden water rates for calendar years 2020 through 2023.
ATB 2025-296

The assessors offered several documents, including: a copy of
the 	minutes 	from 	the 	Public 	Works 	Commission's 	April 	11, 	2023,
meeting 	- 	the 	appellant's 	abatement 	hearing; 	the 	subject
property's water and sewer account detail; and other documents.
Mr. Lung testified that he and his wife purchased the subject
property 	on 	September 	8, 	2020, 	and 	for 	the 	ensuing 	twenty-nine
months 	until 	March 	9, 	2023, 	when 	he 	requested 	and 	was 	issued 	the
contested 	bill, 	the 	monthly 	water 	and 	sewer 	bills 	were 	always
estimated bills that were paid in full. Mr. Lung further testified
that it was his belief that the estimated billing was the standard
practice 	and 	argued 	that 	the 	contested 	bill 	was 	more 	than 	three
times 	too 	high. 	However, 	he 	offered 	no 	evidence 	to 	support 	this
claim. Mr. Lung further argued that because the high meter reading
at issue stemmed from a leak that began approximately four months
prior to his ownership of the subject property, and because there
was 	no 	actual 	meter 	reading 	performed 	at 	the 	time 	of 	closing 	the
sale 	in 	2020, 	the 	contested 	bill 	for 	the 	period 	at 	issue 	is 	the
previous owner's liability.
Based 	on 	the 	evidence 	presented, 	the 	Board 	found 	and 	ruled
that 	the 	appellant’s 	arguments 	were 	unavailing 	because 	the
appellant failed to provide any probative evidence to demonstrate
that 	the 	disputed 	charges 	were 	excessive 	and 	liability 	for 	the
charges cannot be shifted to the subject property’s prior owner by
the Board.
ATB 2025-297

Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in
this appeal.
OPINION
A 	taxpayer 	aggrieved 	by 	water 	and 	sewer 	charges 	“may 	apply
for 	an 	abatement 	by 	filing 	a 	petition 	with 	the 	board 	or 	officer
having 	control 	of 	the 	water 	department” 	and 	if 	such 	petition 	is
denied 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	taxpayer 	“may 	appeal 	to 	the
appellate tax board upon the same terms and conditions as a person
aggrieved 	by 	the 	refusal 	of 	the 	assessors 	of 	a 	city 	or 	town 	to
abate a tax.” G.L. c. 40, § 42E.
General Laws c. 59, § 65 provides in pertinent part:
A 	person 	aggrieved 	. 	. 	. 	with 	respect 	to 	a 	tax 	on
property 	in 	any 	municipality 	may, 	subject 	to 	the 	same
conditions 	provided 	for 	an 	appeal 	under 	section 	sixty-
four, 	appeal 	to 	the 	appellate 	tax 	board 	by 	filing 	a
petition 	with 	such 	board 	within 	three 	months 	after 	the
date 	of 	the 	assessors’ 	decision 	on 	an 	application 	for
abatement as provided in section sixty-three, or within
three 	months 	after 	the 	time 	when 	the 	application 	is
deemed to be denied as provided in section sixty-four.
Accordingly, 	within 	three 	months 	after 	denial 	or 	deemed
denial 	of 	an 	application 	for 	abatement 	of 	unpaid 	water 	and 	sewer
charges, 	the 	owner 	may 	appeal 	to 	the 	Board. 	See Epstein 	v.
Executive Secretary of the Board of Selectmen of Sharon, 22 Mass.
App. Ct. 135, 137 (1986).
ATB 2025-298

In the present appeal, there was no dispute that the contested
water 	and 	sewer 	charges 	remained 	unpaid, 	resulting 	in 	a 	lien 	on
the 	subject 	property. 	See 	Epstein, 	22 	Mass. 	App. 	Ct. 	at 	137. 	The
Board 	also 	found 	that 	the 	application 	for 	abatement 	of 	the 	water
and 	sewer 	charges 	was 	timely 	filed 	with 	the 	appellee 	and 	that
the appellant 	seasonably 	appealed 	to 	this 	Board 	within 	three
months 	of 	the 	denial. See G.L. 	c. 	59, 	§§ 	64 	and 	65. 	Accordingly,
the Board ruled that it had jurisdiction over this appeal.
The 	burden 	of 	proof 	is 	upon 	the 	appellant 	to 	make 	out 	its
right as a matter of law to an abatement of an assessment of water
and 	sewer 	charges. 	See, 	e.g., 	Schlaiker 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Great
Barrington, 	365 Mass. 	243, 	245 	(1974). 	The 	appellant 	must
demonstrate 	that 	the 	water 	and 	sewer 	charges 	on 	the 	bill 	are
improper. 	See Foxboro 	Associates 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Foxborough,
385 Mass. 679, 691 (1982); Epstein, 22 Mass. App. Ct. at 136. The
charges are presumed valid until the appellant sustains his burden
of 	proving 	otherwise. 	Lacerra 	v. 	Harwich 	Water 	Department, 	Mass.
ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-1325, 1333.
ATB 2025-299

In 	the 	present 	appeal, 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	provide 	any
probative evidence to demonstrate that the water and sewer charges
at issue were excessive. Further, there is no mechanism for relief
at 	the 	Board 	based 	on 	a 	claim 	that 	a 	prior 	owner 	should 	be
responsible for the disputed charges. Accordingly, the Board ruled
that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	sustain 	its 	burden 	of 	demonstrating
its 	right 	to 	an 	abatement 	and 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellee
in the instant appeal.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: ______________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: _________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-300