Kevin A. Spellman v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Marshfield (April 30, 2010)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD


KEVIN A. SPELLMAN		v.	  BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF  
			  THE TOWN OF MARSHFIELD

Docket No. F294260			       Promulgated:
							  April 30, 2010
 
							
	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 Board of Assessors of the Town of Marshfield ("appellee" or "assessors"), to abate taxes on certain real estate located in Marshfield, owned by and assessed to the appellant under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2008.
	Commissioner Egan ("Presiding Commissioner") heard this appeal and issued a single-member decision for the appellee in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1 and 831 CMR 1.20. 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. 

	Kevin A. Spellman, pro se, for the appellant.

	Elizabeth Bates, assessor, for the appellee.  

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On the basis of testimony and exhibits offered into evidence at the hearing of this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2007, Kevin A. Spellman ("appellant") was an assessed owner of an improved parcel of real estate located at 20 Chickatawbut Avenue in Marshfield ("subject property"). For fiscal year 2008, the assessors valued the subject property at $366,000 and assessed a tax thereon, at a rate of $8.72 per $1,000, in the amount of $3,191.52. Marshfield's Collector of Taxes mailed the fiscal year 2008 tax bills on December 31, 2007. In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellant paid the tax due without incurring interest and in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellant timely filed an Application for Abatement on January 22, 2008. Having inspected the subject property on February 12, 2008, the assessors granted a partial abatement in the amount of $67.14 on February 29, 2008, reducing the subject property's valuation to $358,300. On April 15, 2008, the appellant seasonably filed an appeal with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board"). On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to decide this appeal. 
The subject property consists of a 0.138-acre parcel of real estate located approximately 290 feet from Massachusetts Bay and improved with a single-family, ranch-style home containing approximately 640 square feet of finished living area. The dwelling has four rooms, including two bedrooms, as well as one full bathroom. 
The appellant, a certified residential real estate appraiser whom the Presiding Commissioner qualified as an expert in residential real estate appraisal, argued that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2008. The appellant testified in support of his argument and offered into evidence his self-prepared appraisal report. 
To arrive at his estimate of the subject property's fair cash value, the appellant performed a comparable-sales analysis incorporating sales of six purportedly comparable properties. The properties' sale dates ranged from March 31, 2006 to December 1, 2006, and their sale prices from $275,000 to $369,250. Five of the six properties were improved with ranch-style dwellings containing two bedrooms and one bathroom, similar to the subject property. One property, which among the appellant's chosen comparables was most proximate to the subject property but still more than twice the distance from the beach, featured a five-room Cape-Cod-style dwelling containing two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The appellant made adjustments to his chosen comparables for various factors including living area, condition, time of sale and parcel size. Having taken these factors into consideration, the appellant arrived at adjusted sale prices for the properties ranging from $288,500 to $312,200, and an indicated value for the subject property of $295,000.  
Notably, the appellant made an adjustment relating to location for only one of his chosen comparables, notwithstanding that all of the properties were significantly farther from the beach than the subject property. More specifically, the properties whose sale prices were not adjusted for location were situated approximately 500 to 1300 feet from Massachusetts Bay, while the subject property is located less than 300 feet from the Bay. The Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant failed to adequately adjust for the comparables' greater distance from the water, thereby substantially diminishing the probative value of the appellant's appraisal. 
Elizabeth Bates, assessor for Marshfield, testified on behalf of the assessors and presented a comparable-sales analysis which included three properties that sold between March 14, 2006 and August 28, 2006, at sales prices which ranged from $355,000 to $430,000. The properties were all improved with cottage-style dwellings and were located between 320 and 430 feet from the beach. Having accounted for various differences between the comparable properties and the subject property, the assessors concluded that these sales supported the assessed value of the subject property for fiscal year 2008. The assessors also introduced assessment data for three properties, two of which abut the subject property, and all of which were similar to the subject property in relevant respects. These properties' assessed values were between $353,700 and $370,900 for fiscal year 2008. The Presiding Commissioner found Ms. Bates' testimony and the assessors' comparable-sales analysis credible and, along with the assessed values of the neighboring properties, supportive of the subject property's 2008 assessed value.
Having concluded that the appellant's appraisal was not sufficiently probative to establish the fair cash value of the subject property on the relevant assessment date, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant failed to sustain his burden of persuading the Board that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2008. Moreover, the Presiding Commissioner found that the assessors produced credible evidence demonstrating that the subject property was not overvalued. On this basis, the Presiding Commissioner decided this appeal for the assessors.  

OPINION  
	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.  The definition of fair cash value is the price upon which a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree if both were fully informed and neither was under compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
The burden of proof is upon the taxpayer to make out a right to an abatement as a matter of law.  Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).  An assessment is presumed to be valid unless the taxpayer is able to sustain his or her burden of proving otherwise.  Id.  The taxpayer may sustain this burden by introducing affirmative evidence of fair cash value, or by proving that the assessors erred in their method of valuation.  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591,        600 (1984). "The introduction of ample and substantial evidence in this regard may provide adequate support for abatement."  Chouinard v. Assessors of Natick, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-299, 307-308 (citing Garvey v. Assessors of West Newbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1995-129, 135-36; Swartz v. Assessors of Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1993-271, 279-80).  
"[S]ales of property usually furnish strong evidence of market value, provided they are arm's-length transactions and thus fairly represent what a buyer has been willing to pay for the property to a willing seller."  Foxboro Associates v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982).  Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within a reasonable time of the assessment date generally contain probative evidence for determining the value of the property at issue.  Graham v. Assessors of West Tisbury, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2008-321, 400 (citing McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929)), aff'd, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008).  When comparable sales are used, however, allowances must be made for various factors which would otherwise cause disparities in the comparable property's sale prices. See Pembroke Industrial Park Co., Inc. v. Assessors of Pembroke, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-1072, 1082.  "Adjustments for differences in the elements of comparison are made to the price of each comparable property . . . . The magnitude of the adjustment made for each element of comparison depends on how much that characteristic of the comparable property differs from the subject property."  THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE, THE APPRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE 322 (13th ed., 2008).
In the present appeal, the appellant argued that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2008, and relied upon his appraisal of the property to support this argument. To value the subject property, the appellant performed a comparable-sales analysis citing sales of several purportedly comparable properties and making adjustments to their sale prices to account for differences between the properties and the subject property. The appellant failed, however, to adequately account for the differences in proximity to Massachusetts Bay between his chosen comparables and the subject property. In light of this failure, and mindful of the substantial importance of location to the value of property in close proximity to the Bay, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant's analysis was not sufficiently probative to establish the subject property's fair cash value. In contrast, the assessors presented testimony and a comparable-sales analysis, as well as comparably assessed properties, that the Presiding Commissioner found credible and supportive of the contested assessment.  
The Presiding Commissioner thus found and ruled that the appellant failed to meet his burden of persuading the Board that the subject property was overvalued for fiscal year 2008 and decided this appeal for the appellee.


   APPELLATE TAX BOARD
               
				    By:______________________________
					   Nancy T. Egan, Commissioner


A true copy:


Attest: undefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefined_________________________
	       Clerk of the Board

 Inexplicably, the sole property to which the appellant applied an adjustment reflecting an inferior location because it was "further from the beach," was not the farthest from the beach among the comparable properties.

ATB 2010-363