Ainsworth v. City of Claremont

• Decision Date: 30 December 1964
• Citation: 205 A.2d 356,106 N.H. 85
• Parties: J. Laban AINSWORTH v. CITY OF CLAREMONT.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 356

205 A.2d 356

106 N.H. 85

J. Laban AINSWORTH v. CITY OF CLAREMONT.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued Nov. 4, 1964.

Decided Nov. 30, 1964.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 30, 1964.

Leahy & Denault, Albert D. Leahy, Jr., Claremont, for plaintiff.

Robert B. Buckley, City Sol., for defendant.

LAMPRON, Justice.

The plaintiff owns a farm in Claremont consisting of about 155 acres of land, an eleven room dwelling, a barn, and seven other structures. During the year 1961, all the taxable property in the city was reassessed. The resulting valuations were to be used beginning April 1, 1962.

All reappraisals were made by the replacement cost less depreciation method of arriving at fair market value. All structures were inspected, measured, and classified according to certain construction standards. The replacement cost thus arrived at was then depreciated to reflect physical depreciation and functional obsolescence, which is deterioration of the property other than physical.

In this manner a fair market value of $22,980 was arrived at for all nine buildings on plaintiff's land. The latter was given a value of $5,470 making a total fair market value of $28,450. As it is agreed that all property in the city was assessed at 75% of market value, plaintiff's assessment was $21,400.

There was testimony before the Trial Court that, in addition to the replacement cost approach to fair market value used by the assessors, there are also the income and the market or comparable sales methods of determining such value. The Court viewed plaintiff's property and four other farms recently sold and received evidence of their selling prices. Witness Hyde, a professional real estate appraiser, using the comparable sales approach with some consideration given to the income method, valued plaintiff's property at $17,000. The plaintiff, a real estate appraiser also, placed a value of $15,000 to $16,000 on his farm.

The Trial Court found the fair market value of plaintiff's farm to be $20,000 instead of $24,680 placed on it by the assessors. We hold that the record amply supports the finding of the Court. The defendant does not contend otherwise.

The defendant strongly maintains however that the order of the Court abating so much of plaintiff's tax for the years 1962 and 1963 as is based on an assessment in excess of $15,000 (75% of $20,000) was not warranted. Its brief succinctly states defendant's position as follows: 'The petitioner at no point in the hearing * * * produced even a scintilla of evidence on the issue he alone raised that he was treated inequitably in the assessment and that he was required to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of taxation in Claremont'.

The plaintiff argues that, even assuming he failed to prove a disproportionate assessment, the defendant cannot question the sufficiency of the evidence to support a decree or a material issue in a case by motion to set aside the Court's decree as was attempted here by the defendant. Hould v. Maryland Casualty Company, 83 N.H. 474, 144 A. 261; Webster & Atlas National Bank v. George A. Fuller Sons Co., 85 N.H. 186, 188, 155 A. 697. The rule invoked by the plaintiff has certain limitations and exceptions. Eastman v. Waisman, 94 N.H. 253, 254, 51 A.2d 151. It has frequently been relaxed in cases tried before the Court and especially where a single issue is plainly raised. Kacavisti v. Sprague Elec. Co., 102 N.H. 266, 268, 155 A.2d 183. We hold this is such a case.

To prevail in his petition for an abatement, the plaintiff had to prove that his tax was greater than it should have been with respect to the taxes of other property owners in the taxing district, that is, the city of Claremont. Snow v. Sanbornton, 102 N.H. 11, 148 A.2d 664. In other words he had the burden of showing that the assessment placed on his property was disproportionately higher in relation to its true value than was the case as to other property in the city. Clark v. Town of Middleton, 74 N.H. 188, 66 A. 115; Rollins v. City of Dover, 93 N.H. 448, 450, 44 A.2d 113; Bemis Bros. Bag Co. v. Claremont, 98 N.H. 446, 449, 102 A.2d 512.

The fact that the Trial Court finds as it did in this case, that the plaintiff's property had a lower fair market value than that placed on it by the assessors is not in and of itself grounds for an abatement. If other properties in the city were similarly overvalued by the assessors, there would be no disproportion in the plaintiff's tax burden. 'He must go on and show that his valuation is disproportionate to that of other property in general.' Rollins v. City of Dover, 93 N.H. 448, 450, 44 A.2d 113, 114; Hodges v. Kensington, 102 N.H. 399, 400, 157 A.2d 649.

The assessment of a general property tax looks to the raising of a certain amount of money in the taxing district. 'The rate at which this amount is to be raised is not one fixed by statute but is determined by the relation of the total appraised valuation of all taxable property to the total tax to be raised. Since total valuation bears directly on the rate, if each property is appraised at the same proportion to its full and true value, whether it be higher or lower than that value, the resulting taxes must be proportional. It is not when the appraised value of one property is greater than its true value but only when it is disproportionately higher in relation to that value than is the case as to other property in general, that its owner bears more than his share of the tax burden and is entitled to an abatement.' Brock v. Town of Farmington, 98 N.H. 275, 279, 98 A.2d 162, 164.

Plaintiff's right is to have his property assessed upon the same standard of...