F290545; F290610

Texto completo

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD

WESTON PARTNERS REALTY TRUST v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF WESTON

Docket Nos. X297803-X297868 (FY 06) F290545-F290610 (FY 07) Promulgated:
February 11, 2010

These are appeals pursuant to G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the Town of Weston ("assessors" or "appellee") to abate taxes on certain real estate owned by and assessed to the Weston Partners Realty Trust ("WPRT" or "appellant") for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 ("fiscal years at issue"). The fiscal year 2006 appeals were filed under the informal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7A, and the fiscal year 2007 appeals were filed under the formal procedure. The appeals were subsequently consolidated for hearing.
Commissioner Egan heard these appeals. Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Scharaffa and Rose joined her in decisions 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.

Robert E. McLaughlin, Sr., Esq. and Robert E. McLaughlin, Jr., Esq. for the appellant.

Ellen M. Hutchinson, Esq. for the assessors.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT

Introduction and Jurisdiction
On the basis of the testimony and exhibits offered into the record in the hearing of these appeals, and on the basis of the view taken by the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") of the real property at issue in these appeals, the Board made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006, the relevant assessment dates for the fiscal years at issue, WPRT was the assessed owner of sixty-six condominium units ("subject property" or "subject condominiums") located in Weston. The subject condominiums were part of a ninety-nine unit apartment complex constructed in the 1970s. The complex was purchased by the appellant on July 20, 2004 and the units were converted from rental apartments to condominiums, known as the Stonegate Condominiums ("Stonegate Condominiums").
On December 27, 2005, the Collector of Taxes for Weston mailed the actual fiscal year 2006 tax bills. The appellant timely paid the tax due for each condominium without incurring interest. The appellant filed its Applications for Abatement on January 24, 2006, which were denied by the assessors on March 28, 2006. The appellant timely filed its petitions with the Board on June 27, 2006.
On December 27, 2006, the Collector of Taxes for Weston mailed the actual fiscal year 2007 tax bills. The appellant timely paid the tax due for each condominium without incurring interest. The appellant filed its Applications for Abatement on January 22, 2007, which were deemed denied on April 22, 2007. The appellant timely filed its petitions with the Board on June 15, 2007. On the basis of these facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide these appeals.
The Appellant's Purchase and Sales of the Subject Condominiums

The Stonegate Condominium complex is comprised of approximately 28.2 acres of land improved with twenty-two individual buildings. The buildings give the appearance of one and two-story, single-family homes built in the Royal Barry Wills style. The buildings have wooden exteriors. Interior finishes include drywall and ceramic tile and hardwood floors. Each unit has central air conditioning and comes with one deeded, uncovered parking space, but buyers have the option to purchase an additional and/or covered parking space. Some of the units have outdoor patios.
Stonegate Condominiums are available in five different floor plans. "Type A" units are one-bedroom, one-bathroom, Cape-style units; "Type B" units are two-bedroom, two-bathroom, Cape-style units; "Type C" units are two-bedroom, two-bathroom, townhouse-style units; "Type D" units are three-bedroom, two-bathroom, Cape-style units; and "Type E" units are one-bedroom, one-bathroom, one-level units, which are smaller in square footage than the "Type A" one-bedroom units.
WPRT purchased the Stonegate Condominiums on July 20, 2004 for $29 million. It financed this purchase through a $27.1 million mortgage from Merrill Lynch Capital, which was due on July 31, 2007, just over three years later. The mortgage was later amended and the loan amount increased to $31.4 million.
Following its purchase of the Stonegate Condominiums, WPRT entered into an aggressive marketing campaign to sell the units. As part of its marketing campaign, WPRT also promised to make numerous exterior improvements at the Stonegate Condominiums, including new paving, siding, landscaping and other improvements to the common areas of the condominium complex. Potential buyers had the option to buy the units "as is" or to purchase an additional package of interior improvements, including updated kitchen and bathroom finishes.
Curtis Kemeny testified for the appellant at the hearing of these appeals. In 2003, Mr. Kemeny joined the T.H. Niles Real Estate Group, a property management firm which managed the Stonegate Condominiums. In 2004, Mr. Kemeny formed Boston Residential Group, another property management company which assumed all of the management contracts of the T.H. Niles Real Estate Group, including the contract for the subject property.
Mr. Kemeny testified that when WPRT purchased the Stonegate complex, it believed it would be able to sell the subject condominiums within three years, at most. Mr. Kemeny stated that WPRT held a marketing event for the existing tenants of the units at a local community center, featuring brochures and other marketing materials. One such marketing document - a listing sheet of the prices for the various unit models, dated October 7, 2004 - was entered into evidence. That listing sheet recited the following price ranges for each unit type:
Unit Type "As-Is" Price Renovated Price
A $426,000-$429,000 $509,000
B $552,000-$562,500 $635,000-$644,000
C $482,500-$515,000 $585,000-$614,000
D $635,000-$650,000 $749,000
E $360,000-$389,000 $459,000-$464,000

According to Mr. Kemeny, there was substantial interest among the existing tenants of the units and others in the Weston community in purchasing the condominiums. Deeds for twenty of the condominiums were signed and recorded in 2004. Deeds for another thirteen condominiums were signed in 2004, but not recorded until 2005. The remaining sixty-six condominiums in the Stonegate Condominium complex are the subject of these appeals.
Following the initial thirty-three transactions, sales of the Stonegate Condominiums declined. The deed for only one unit was signed in 2005, while 2006 saw only a slight increase in sales activity. Faced with sluggish sales, WPRT took out a construction loan on March 29, 2006, to complete the capital improvements it had undertaken. The loan, from Citizen's Bank, was in the amount of $19 million.
WPRT also enlisted a new broker, Coldwell Banker, in an effort to spur more sales. According to Mr. Kemeny, the brokers at Coldwell Banker advised WPRT that the units were overpriced, and recommended that they reduce the asking price of each unit. WPRT heeded this advice and reduced the asking prices of the remaining condominiums. For example, of the initial thirty-three sales, fourteen were Type "B" units. The sale prices of those units ranged from $512,000 to $650,000. In contrast, sales deeds recorded in 2007 for Type "B" units reflected sale prices ranging from $400,000 to $530,000. Similarly, of the initial thirty-three sales, three were Type "A" units. The sale prices of those units ranged from $424,000 to $560,000. Sales deeds recorded in 2007 for Type "A" units reflected sale prices ranging from $265,000 to $360,000. As a result of the reduction in prices, sales increased dramatically. Fifty-seven units were sold in 2007.
The Date of Sale of the Condominiums at Issue
The sales deeds for the subject condominiums were entered into the record in these appeals. Those deeds - and other evidence entered into the record - revealed a pattern of irregularities surrounding the sales of the condominiums at issue. In some instances, purchase and sale agreements were executed after the signing of the deeds. In numerous instances, the deeds were signed months, and in same cases more than a year, before they were recorded in the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Kemeny testified that, because of the fast pace of the initial sales, he signed deeds in "batches" and returned them to WPRT's attorney. He also acknowledged that in many instances, the condominiums for which he had signed deeds in 2004 did not close until well after the date the deeds were signed. Mr. Kemeny testified that the delay in closings occurred for a variety of reasons, including that some of the purchasers wanted to wait to close until the work on the common areas had been completed.
A major dispute between the parties was whether the date of signature or the date of recordation of the deeds should be regarded as the date of sale. The assessors used the date of recordation as the date of sale, while the appellant's expert appraiser, Robert LaPorte, Jr., considered the date of signature of the deeds to be the date of sale, because, in his opinion, that was the date that the parties entered into a binding agreement. Mr. LaPorte considered there to be thirty-three sales in 2004, one in 2005, and fourteen in 2006. Using the recordation date, the assessors, by contrast, considered there to be twenty sales in 2004, thirteen in 2005, and four in 2006. Both parties agreed that, following a reduction in price, fifty-seven units were sold in 2007.
Valuation of the Subject Condominiums
The appellant called three witnesses to testify at the hearing of these appeals. In addition to the testimony of Mr. Kemeny, WPRT called Eric Josephson, the principal assessor for Weston, to testify. However, the appellant relied primarily on the testimony and report of its real estate appraiser, Mr. LaPorte. Based on his education, experience and certifications, the Board qualified Mr. LaPorte as an expert real estate appraiser.
To value the subject condominiums, Mr. LaPorte and the assessors used basically the same valuation methodology. Like the assessors, Mr. LaPorte considered the highest and best use of the subject property to be its continued use as a residential condominium development. Both the assessors and Mr. LaPorte considered the comparable-sales approach to be the most reliable method of valuing the subject property. Also like the assessors, Mr. LaPorte employed a two-step valuation process. First, he selected a representative unit for each of the five types of units available at Stonegate, and used the comparable-sales approach to value each representative unit. Both Mr. LaPorte and the assessors used the initial thirty-three sales of Stonegate Condominiums as comparable sales for the purposes of their comparable-sales analyses. Next, both Mr. LaPorte and the assessors used a mass appraisal methodology to arrive at fair cash values for the remaining condominium units. That is where the similarities ended.
Despite using identical comparable-sales properties and the same basic valuation methodology, Mr. LaPorte and the assessors arrived at markedly different fair cash values because of the adjustments to value that each made. In particular, Mr. LaPorte made considerable adjustments in value to many of the condominiums at issue to account for differences in date of sale, while the assessors did not. This discrepancy was, in part, the result of the difference of opinion between the parties as to the actual dates of sale for each of the condominiums at issue and the comparable-sales properties.
Because of the decrease in sales following the sales of the initial thirty-three units, Mr. LaPorte did not believe that the sales prices of those units were an accurate reflection of the fair cash value of the subject condominiums during the fiscal years at issue. Accordingly, he looked at all sales of Stonegate Condominiums between 2004 and 2006 and calculated median annual sales prices for each unit type. Mr. LaPorte then extrapolated from those median sales prices average annual declines in value for each unit type and used those figures to make adjustments to his comparable-sales properties for market conditions, or in other words, for differences in date of sale.
The assessors did not present a case and instead rested on the assessments.
The Board's Ultimate Findings of Fact
The Board, like the parties, found that the highest and best use of the subject property was its continued use as residential condominiums. The Board also found that the sales-comparison approach was the most reliable method for valuing the subject property.
On the basis of all of the evidence, the Board found that the appellant did not meet its burden of proving that the fair cash values of the subject condominiums were lower than their assessed values. The appellant presented its case-in-chief primarily through the testimony and report of its expert appraiser. During the course of his testimony, Mr. LaPorte admitted that there were many errors in his appraisal report. On several occasions, Mr. LaPorte admitted that he did not know how he calculated certain adjustments that he made to the sales prices of his comparable-sales properties.
Further, the adjustments Mr. LaPorte made to his comparable-sales properties for differences in date of sale were simply untenable. For fiscal year 2006, to calculate his adjustment for date of sale for Type "B" condominiums, Mr. LaPorte first calculated the average annual decline in median sales prices between 2004 and 2006. That average annual decline was $110,000. He then made downward adjustments in that amount for three Type "B" condominiums which sold, in his opinion, in October of 2004. Therefore, although those three Type "B" condominiums had sold, in his opinion, less than two months prior to the relevant assessment date, he made a six-figure downward adjustment to account for the difference in date of sale. Using this same methodology, Mr. LaPorte made downward adjustments in the amount of $80,000 for three Type "A" units which had sold, in his opinion, in October, November, and December of 2004, less than three full months from the relevant date of assessment for fiscal year 2006. The Board found these adjustments to be erroneous for a multitude of reasons.
As an initial matter, the Board did not agree with Mr. LaPorte that the date of the signing of the deed should be considered the date of sale. Although Mr. Kemeny signed many of the deeds in 2004, he testified only that he returned the signed deeds to WPRT's attorney. Therefore, there was no evidence as to when the deeds were delivered to and accepted by the purchasers. Moreover, Mr. Kemeny testified that the deeds for many of the units were signed but the sales did not close until later for a variety of reasons, including that some of the purchasers wanted to wait until the common area improvements had been completed. Thus, in spite of the fact that the deeds were signed on certain dates, there was no evidence that the grantor intended to effectuate a transfer on those dates, nor was there evidence that the grantees accepted the conveyance of the deeds on those dates. Additional evidence in the record indicated that the sales were not finalized on the date of the signing of the deeds, including the fact that, in some instances, the purchase and sale agreements were executed after the deeds were signed. The Board therefore found that Mr. LaPorte's adjustments for date of sale were flawed because, among other reasons, they were premised upon incorrect dates of sale.
Furthermore, Mr. LaPorte adjusted for differences in date of sale by first calculating average annual declines in median sales prices for each condominium type. Mr. LaPorte considered the initial thirty-three sales to have taken place in 2004. Because the relevant dates of assessment were January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006, Mr. LaPorte deducted the average annual decline amount from the sale prices of the comparable properties. However, rather than prorating that figure to reflect the difference between the actual date of sale and the relevant assessment date, Mr. LaPorte simply deducted the average annual decline amount in its entirety from the sale price. In some instances, this approach resulted in adjustments in the range of $80,000 to $110,000 for sales which occurred within weeks of the relevant dates of assessment. The Board found that the market data entered into the record did not support adjustments of that magnitude.
In sum, the Board found that Mr. LaPorte's valuation contained errors and was unsupported by the evidence. It therefore placed little weight on Mr. LaPorte's opinions of value.
In contrast, the Board found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the assessments at issue. The Board noted that, in the months leading up to January 1, 2005, the appellant was able to sell numerous condominiums at prices well in excess of the fiscal year 2006 assessed values. The Board found this to be compelling evidence that the assessed values of the subject condominiums did not exceed their fair cash values for fiscal year 2006.
Further, the Board rejected Mr. LaPorte's contention that the 2007 sales prices of the subject condominiums were probative evidence of their fair cash values on either January 1, 2005 or January 1, 2006. Indeed, the Board inferred from the circumstances surrounding the brisk sales of the subject condominiums in 2007 that the greatly reduced sales prices were more of a reflection of the tremendous pressure that WPRT was under to sell the condominiums and pay off its loans, rather than a reflection of the fair cash values of the subject condominiums. Mr. Kemeny testified that WPRT had purchased the subject condominiums in July of 2004 with the expectation to sell them over a three-year period, at most. Instead, it was left holding the majority of the condominiums into 2007. WPRT had financed the original purchase of the subject condominiums with a loan that was due in 2007, and further, took out an additional $19 million construction loan. WPRT needed to sell the remaining condominiums to pay those loans. For these reasons, the Board did not find the 2007 sales prices to be persuasive evidence of the fair cash values of the subject condominiums on either January 1, 2005 or January 1, 2006. Because Mr. LaPorte used the 2007 sales data, in part, in forming his opinions of fair cash value for the subject condominiums, and because of the numerous aforementioned errors in his methodology, the Board placed little weight on his opinions of value.
Accordingly, the Board found that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proving that the fair cash values of the subject condominiums were lower than their assessed values for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. It therefore issued decisions for the appellee in these appeals.

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 properties had 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 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)).
In the present appeals, the evidence offered by the appellant consisted mainly of the testimony and appraisal report of its expert appraiser. The Board found and ruled that the appellant's expert's sales-comparison analysis was flawed, and it therefore did not provide reliable evidence of the fair cash values of the subject condominiums. On several occasions during the course of his testimony, the appellant's expert acknowledged errors in his report, and, further, could not explain the basis of the calculations behind some of his adjustments to value. The Board did not find his testimony or appraisal report to be reliable evidence of the fair cash values of the subject condominiums.
In particular, the Board found that Mr. LaPorte's adjustments for differences in date of sale were not supported by the market data. His adjustments to the sale prices of his comparable properties were based upon average annual declines in median sales prices of each condominium type. However, he did not prorate the annual decline amount to correlate to the actual differences in date of sale. Instead, he deducted the average annual decline amount, in its entirety, from the sale price of the comparable property.
Moreover, the Board found and ruled that Mr. LaPorte's adjustments for differences in date of sale were premised upon incorrect sale dates. "Delivery of a deed is essential to its validity, and the deed becomes effective only at the time of its delivery . . . Delivery occurs where the grantor intends the deed to effect a present transfer of the property conveyed, and the grantee assents to the conveyance." Graves v. Hutchinson, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 634, 639-40, (1996) (internal citations omitted). Mr. LaPorte considered the sale date to be the date of signature of the deeds. Although Mr. Kemeny signed many of the deeds in 2004, he testified only that he returned the signed deeds to WPRT's attorney. Therefore, there was no evidence as to when the deeds were delivered to and accepted by the purchasers. Further, additional evidence in the record indicated that there was no intent to "effect a present transfer of the property" on the deed- signature date. Id. Rather, there was evidence in the record that the sales were not closed on those dates, but instead were delayed for various reasons, including the purchasers' desire to have the work on the common areas completed before closing on the condominiums. In addition, many of the purchase and sale agreements were executed after the signing of the deeds, which was further evidence that the transactions were not final as of the date of the signing of the deeds. The Board therefore found and ruled that Mr. LaPorte's adjustments for differences in date of sale were flawed because, among other reasons, they were premised upon incorrect dates of sale.
Based on the evidence presented, the Board found and ruled that the appellant did not meet its burden of proving that the assessed values of the subject condominiums exceeded their fair cash values for the fiscal years at issue. Accordingly, the Board issued decisions for the appellee in these appeals.

APPELLATE TAX BOARD

By: ________________________________
Thomas W. Hammond Jr., Chairman

A true copy,

Attest: ____________________________
Clerk of the Board

APPENDIX A

Fiscal Year 2006

Docket Number Address Assessment

X-297803 2 Jericho Rd $604,700
X-297804 4A Jericho Rd $332,600
X-297805 4B Jericho Rd $333,100
X-297806 4C Jericho Rd $331,100
X-297807 4D Jericho Rd $331,100
X-297808 14 Jericho Rd $448,200
X-297809 16 Jericho Rd $433,500
X-297810 17 Jericho Rd $507,400
X-297811 18 Jericho Rd $505,800
X-297812 19 Jericho Rd $448,000
X-297813 21 Jericho Rd $448,800
X-297814 23 Jericho Rd $451,300
X-297815 25 Jericho Rd $507,400
X-297816 31 Jericho Rd $446,900
X-297817 33 Jericho Rd $446,400
X-297818 34 Jericho Rd $424,100
X-297819 36A Jericho Rd $332,200
X-297820 36B Jericho Rd $332,200
X-297821 36C Jericho Rd $331,500
X-297822 36D Jericho Rd $330,400
X-297823 41 Jericho Rd $448,600
X-297824 43 Jericho Rd $446,600
X-297825 44 Jericho Rd $447,100
X-297826 46 Jericho Rd $446,900
X-297827 53A Jericho Rd $333,700
X-297828 53B Jericho Rd $332,200
X-297829 56 Jericho Rd $448,400
X-297830 59 Jericho Rd $575,400
X-297831 60 Jericho Rd $576,200
X-297832 61 Jericho Rd withdrawn
X-297833 63 Jericho Rd $447,300
X-297834 66 Jericho Rd $446,600
X-297835 68 Jericho Rd $446,400
X-297836 70 Jericho Rd $502,600
X-297837 71 Jericho Rd $447,300
X-297838 73 Jericho Rd $456,300
X-297839 74 Jericho Rd $506,100
X-297840 75 Jericho Rd $507,900
X-297841 76 Jericho Rd $451,100
X-297842 78 Jericho Rd $448,600
X-297843 79 Jericho Rd $506,100
X-297844 80 Jericho Rd $447,300
X-297845 81 Jericho Rd $447,800
X-297846 83 Jericho Rd $447,800
X-297847 85 Jericho Rd $508,200
X-297848 86 Jericho Rd $507,900
X-297849 88 Jericho Rd $446,600
X-297850 89 Jericho Rd $501,800
X-297851 90 Jericho Rd $446,600
X-297852 91 Jericho Rd $448,200
X-297853 92 Jericho Rd $505,500
X-297854 93 Jericho Rd $447,800
X-297855 95 Jericho Rd $502,100
X-297856 98 Jericho Rd $446,900
X-297857 99 Jericho Rd $382,000
X-297858 100 Jericho Rd $447,300
X-297859 101 Jericho Rd $447,100
X-297860 103 Jericho Rd $447,300
X-297861 106 Jericho Rd $507,600
X-297862 109 Jericho Rd $505,500
X-297863 110 Jericho Rd $448,600
X-297864 111 Jericho Rd $446,600
X-297865 112 Jericho Rd $446,900
X-297866 113 Jericho Rd $445,700
X-297867 114 Jericho Rd withdrawn
X-297868 119 Jericho Rd $505,000

Fiscal Year 2007

Docket Number Address Assessment

F-290545 2 Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290546 4A Jericho Rd $339,700
F-290547 4B Jericho Rd $340,100
F-290548 4C Jericho Rd $316,600
F-290549 4D Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290550 14 Jericho Rd $428,100
F-290551 16 Jericho Rd $465,100
F-290552 17 Jericho Rd $485,000
F-290553 18 Jericho Rd $483,500
F-290554 19 Jericho Rd $481,100
F-290555 21 Jericho Rd $428,700
F-290556 23 Jericho Rd $484,700
F-290557 25 Jericho Rd $485,000
F-290558 31 Jericho Rd $414,400
F-290559 33 Jericho Rd $479,500
F-290560 34 Jericho Rd $438,500
F-290561 36A Jericho Rd $339,200
F-290562 36B Jericho Rd $317,600
F-290563 36C Jericho Rd $317,000
F-290564 36D Jericho Rd $337,400
F-290565 41 Jericho Rd $428,500
F-290566 43 Jericho Rd $567,900
F-290567 44 Jericho Rd $543,500
F-290568 46 Jericho Rd $463,600
F-290569 53A Jericho Rd $319,100
F-290570 53B Jericho Rd $317,600
F-290571 56 Jericho Rd $481,600
F-290572 59 Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290573 60 Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290574 61 Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290575 63 Jericho Rd $543,700
F-290576 66 Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290577 68 Jericho Rd $479,500
F-290578 70 Jericho Rd $480,500
F-290579 71 Jericho Rd $427,200
F-290580 73 Jericho Rd $435,800
F-290581 74 Jericho Rd $516,700
F-290582 75 Jericho Rd $485,500
F-290583 76 Jericho Rd $430,800
F-290584 78 Jericho Rd $481,800
F-290585 79 Jericho Rd $516,700
F-290586 80 Jericho Rd $480,400
F-290587 81 Jericho Rd $480,900
F-290588 83 Jericho Rd $480,900
F-290589 85 Jericho Rd $485,800
F-290590 86 Jericho Rd $485,500
F-290591 88 Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290592 89 Jericho Rd $512,300
F-290593 90 Jericho Rd $542,900
F-290594 91 Jericho Rd $544,800
F-290595 92 Jericho Rd $483,300
F-290596 93 Jericho Rd $544,300
F-290597 95 Jericho Rd $512,600
F-290598 98 Jericho Rd $426,800
F-290599 99 Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290600 100 Jericho Rd $480,400
F-290601 101 Jericho Rd $480,200
F-290602 103 Jericho Rd $480,400
F-290603 106 Jericho Rd $626,900
F-290604 109 Jericho Rd $483,300
F-290605 110 Jericho Rd $545,300
F-290606 111 Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290607 112 Jericho Rd $543,200
F-290608 113 Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290609 114 Jericho Rd withdrawn
F-290610 119 Jericho Rd $515,600

The assessed values for each of the subject condominiums for both of the fiscal years at issue are set forth in attached Appendix A.
The assessors granted an abatement for one condominium unit, 2 Jericho Road, reducing its fiscal year 2006 assessed value of $604,700 by $27,500 to $577,200.
The fiscal year 2007 taxes for one condominium, 66 Jericho Road, were paid late. The petition for that condominium was withdrawn and its valuation was not at issue for fiscal year 2007.
The Board noted that the denial letter states that the abatement applications were deemed denied on April 23, 2007. However, per operation of G.L. c. 59, § 64 and G.L. c. 58A, § 6, abatement applications are deemed denied after "the expiration of three months from the date of filing," which, in this case, was April 22, 2007. The appellant's petitions were timely filed on June 15, 2007, and therefore, this error did not affect the Board's jurisdiction in these appeals.
Although 66 petitions were initially filed, several were subsequently withdrawn. Those withdrawals are noted on attached Appendix A.
The deed for that unit was not recorded until 2006.
For fiscal year 2007, Mr. LaPorte also calculated the median 2007 sales prices of the subject condominiums and factored that median figure into his adjustments for date of sale of the subject condominiums. These adjustments were generally positive adjustments to value, because the market, in Mr. LaPorte's opinion, continued to decline through 2007, whereas the relevant assessment date was January 1, 2006.


ATB 2010-128

Weston Partners Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Weston (February 11, 2010)

Texto completo

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude