John J. Giurleo v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Raynham (May 3, 2011)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


JOHN J. GIURLEO             v.	  BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
		  THE TOWN OF RAYNHAM

Docket No. F299668		  Promulgated:
        						  May 3, 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 appellee, Board of Assessors of the Town of Raynham ("assessors"), to abate taxes on certain real estate in the Town of Raynham, owned by and assessed to John J. Giurleo ("appellant" or "Mr. Giurleo") under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2009 ("fiscal year at issue").
	Commissioner Egan ("Presiding Commissioner") heard this appeal under G.L. c. 58A, § 1 and 831 CMR 1.20 and issued a single-member decision for the appellant.   
  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.

	John J. Giurleo, pro se, for the appellant.
	Michael Lalli, assessor, 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, 2008, the appellant was the assessed owner of a 40,050 square-foot parcel of real estate located at 200 Wilbur Street in Raynham ("subject property").    The subject property is improved with a single-family, ranch-style home, which contains 1,082 square feet of living area.  The dwelling has a total of five rooms, including three bedrooms.  There is also a twelve square-foot front porch, a twenty-four square-foot side porch, and a shed.
	For fiscal year 2009, the assessors valued the subject property at $265,700 and assessed taxes thereon, including a district tax, in the total amount of $3,238.88.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellant paid the tax due without incurring interest.  On January 27, 2009, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellant timely filed an abatement application with the assessors, which they denied that same day.  On April 14, 2009, the appellant timely filed a petition with the County Commissioners. On April 22, 2009, the assessors timely transferred the case to the Appellate Tax Board ("Board"), pursuant to G.L. c. 59, § 64.  On May 6, 2009, the appellant seasonably perfected his appeal with the Board by paying the required entry fee under G.L. c. 58A, § 7.  On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
The issue in this appeal is whether the assessed value of the subject property, $265,700, exceeded its fair cash value as of January 1, 2008, which was the relevant date of assessment for the fiscal year at issue.  The subject property has been the topic of several recent appeals.  Mr. Giurleo filed appeals with the Board disputing the subject property's assessment for fiscal years 2005, see John J. Giurleo v. Assessors of Raynham, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2006-449 ("Giurleo I"), and 2006, see John J. Giurleo v. Assessors of Raynham, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2007-615 ("Giurleo II"), but those appeals were dismissed based on Mr. Giurleo's refusal to comply with the Board's Orders allowing the assessors to inspect the subject property, as required by G.L. c. 58A, § 8A.  Additionally, Mr. Giurleo appealed the subject property's fiscal year 2008 assessment, but the Presiding Commissioner issued a decision for the appellee in that appeal after finding and ruling that Mr. Giurleo did not meet his burden of proving that the subject property's assessed value was greater than its fair cash value.  See John J. Giurleo v. Assessors of Raynham, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2009-644 ("Giurleo III").   
Following the Board's decisions in Giurleo I and Giurleo II, Mr. Giurleo allowed an independent third-party appraiser to conduct an inspection of the subject property on behalf of the assessors.  That inspection was conducted on September 20, 2009.  According to the testimony and documents entered into the record, the independent appraiser measured the subject property and opined that its total square footage was 1,040 square feet, rather than 1082 square feet, as listed on the property record card for the subject property.  This reduction in square footage was attributed to a 42-square-foot portion of the subject property which protrudes from the main part of the house and which does not have basement beneath it, unlike the rest of the home.  In addition, the independent appraiser suggested other adjustments, such as increasing the depreciation factor to be applied to the dwelling and reducing the value assigned to the shed due to its poor condition.  
Through the testimony of Michael Lalli, assessor for Raynham, along with their documentary submissions, the assessors conceded at the hearing of this appeal that the assessed value of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  After reviewing the independent inspector's report, the assessors applied a greater depreciation factor to the subject property, and also decreased the value of the shed by $200 to account for its poor condition.  Further, the assessors reclassified the entrance to the subject property's basement as a shed after taking into consideration its poor condition. 
Additionally, the assessors initially decreased the value assigned to the dwelling from $133,600 to $131,100 to account for the 42-square-foot decrease in finished living area with basement beneath.  However, they added another category for living area without a basement beneath to account for those 42 square feet, to which they assigned a value of $3,200.  In so doing, the assessors actually increased the value assigned to the dwelling from $133,600 to $134,300.  
After making these adjustments, the assessors' final opinion of the subject property's fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue was $251,200, or $14,500 less than its assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.   
Mr. Giurleo, who testified on his own behalf at the hearing of this appeal, detailed various perceived errors made by the assessors, including the fact that two structures designated by the assessors as porches were not, in his opinion, porches but were merely "entrances."  Mr. Giurleo also contested the $5,300 value assigned to the dwelling's fireplace, which had been boarded up and was located in the dwelling's basement.  In his abatement application, Mr. Giurleo asserted that the fair cash value of the subject property was $232,200. At the hearing, he proposed a fair cash value of $244,240, but he introduced no affirmative evidence of value, such as comparable sales or assessment data, to support his opinion.  The evidence offered by Mr. Giurleo consisted exclusively of his testimony, which was truncated when he abruptly left the hearing before it was concluded.  
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner found that the subject property's assessed value exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  The Presiding Commissioner found that the evidence presented by the assessors, which reflected adjustments to the subject property's valuation made by the assessors following the inspection of the subject property by an independent, third-party appraiser, constituted the best evidence of the subject property's fair cash value.  However, the Presiding Commissioner found that the assessors erred when adjusting the value of the dwelling to account for the 42 square feet of living area without an underlying basement.  Mr. Lalli testified that the assessors were merely attempting to be more precise in accounting for this area, but in actuality they increased the value of the dwelling from $133,600 to $134,300.  The Presiding Commissioner agreed with the assessors that the 42 square feet of space was properly considered living area even though it has no basement beneath it, but she found that there was no support in the record for this $700 increase in value to the dwelling.
The Presiding Commissioner found that Mr. Giurleo, for his part, failed to offer evidence to support his opinion of fair cash value, which he initially expressed to be $232,200, but later asserted was $244,240.  Mr. Giurleo's evidence consisted of his testimony regarding errors made by the assessors in valuing various features of the subject property, including its fireplace and porches. The Presiding Commissioner found that, to the extent that the assessors made errors in their original assessment of the subject property for the fiscal year at issue, those errors were adequately remedied by the subsequent adjustments made by the assessors after they took into consideration the report of the independent appraiser.  Specifically, the Presiding Commissioner found that the assessors adequately accounted for the poor overall condition of the subject property by increasing the depreciation value, and more particularly, they accounted for the poor condition of the shed and basement entrance by decreasing the value assigned to those structures.  The appellant's assertions about the valuation of the subject property's various individual features did little to establish that the fair cash value of the subject property was less than the assessors' revised opinion of value.  Moreover, the appellant offered no recent sales of comparable properties or any comparable assessment data into evidence.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found that there was no support in the record for Mr. Giurleo's opinions of value for the subject property, which ranged from $232,200 to $244,240.  
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the fair cash value of the subject property for the fiscal year at issue was $250,500, an amount which was calculated by adopting the assessors' revised opinion of fair cash value, which was $251,200, and subtracting therefrom the $700 that was erroneously added by the assessors to the value of the dwelling.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner decided this appeal for the appellant, and ordered an abatement of $185.28.  

OPINION
	"All property, real and personal, situated within the commonwealth . . . shall be subject to taxation."  G.L. c. 59, § 2.   Assessors have a statutory obligation to assess real estate at its fair cash value as of the first day of January of the year preceding the fiscal year at issue.  G.L. c. 59 §§ 11 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 neither is under compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956). 
The taxpayer has the burden of proving that the subject property has a lower value than that assessed.  Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).  The assessment is presumed to be valid unless the taxpayer is able to sustain his or her burden of proving otherwise.  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. at 591, 598 (1984) (citing Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).  The taxpayer may sustain this burden by introducing evidence of fair cash value, or by proving that the assessors erred in their method of valuation.  General Electric, 393 Mass. at 600.  
In the present appeal, the assessors conceded that the assessed value of the subject property exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  After taking into consideration the information gathered by an independent appraiser during a recent inspection of the subject property, the assessors' revised opinion of the subject property's fair cash value was $251,200, rather than its assessed value of $265,700.  The Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the evidence introduced by the assessors constituted the most reliable evidence of the subject property's fair cash value, with the exception that they made an error which resulted in the overvaluation of the dwelling by $700.  
	The Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the evidence presented by the appellant did little to erode the credibility of the assessors' revised opinion of value.  Mr. Giurleo introduced no affirmative evidence of value, such as comparable sales or assessment data.  Mr. Giurleo's testimony focused primarily on the perceived flaws committed by the assessors in valuing various individual components of the subject property, such as its porches, which he claimed were merely entrances, and its fireplace.  Even assuming arguendo that Mr. Giurleo's assertions about the subject property were true, such facts alone would not establish that the fair cash value of the subject property was less than the assessors' revised opinion of value.  A taxpayer "does not conclusively establish a right to an abatement merely by showing that [individual components of the property are] overvalued."  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." Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 238 Mass. 396, 403 (1921).   Although the value of a property's component parts "are each open to inquiry," the ultimate question for the Board is "whether [the] single assessment is excessive."  Massachusetts General Hospital, 238 Mass. at 403; see also Buckley v. Assessors of Duxbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-110, 119; Jernegan v. Assessors of Duxbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-39, 44. Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that there was no evidence in the record to support Mr. Giurleo's opinions of the subject property's fair cash value, which ranged from $232,200 to $244,240.  
	On the basis of all of the evidence, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the fair cash value of the subject property for the fiscal year at issue was $250,500.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued a single-member decision for the appellant in this appeal, and ordered an abatement of $185.28.  


APPELLATE TAX BOARD

					By:		_____		_______
					    Nancy T. Egan, Commissioner



A true copy,

Attest: _____________________________
	       Clerk of the Board

 The Presiding Commissioner took judicial notice of the Board's Findings of Fact and Reports in Giurleo I, Giurleo II, and Giurleo III.  
 The abatement amount included a district tax.  

	ATB 2011-358