Bedford Development Co. v. Town of Bedford

• Decision Date: 05 March 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-221,81-221
• Citation: 442 A.2d 590,122 N.H. 187
• Parties: BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. TOWN OF BEDFORD.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 590

442 A.2d 590

122 N.H. 187

BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. TOWN OF BEDFORD.

No. 81-221.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

March 5, 1982.

Law Offices of Cullity and Kelley, of Manchester (John C. Boeckeler, Manchester, on the brief and orally), for plaintiff.

Orr & Reno, P. A., Concord (William L. Chapman, Concord, on the brief and orally), for defendant.

DOUGLAS, Justice.

In this appeal the plaintiff asserts that the Master (Mayland H. Morse, Jr., Esq.), erred in failing to grant a tax abatement for the 1977 real estate tax year in the Town of Bedford on plaintiff's property known as the Bedford Mall. The decree was approved by the Superior Court (Dalianis, J.) and we affirm.

In 1977, the Town of Bedford hired an outside firm to reappraise all of the property in Bedford so that the property would be assessed at 100% of fair market value. The firm assessed the plaintiff's 171/2-acre commercial shopping center at $4,073,020. The selectmen used this figure for tax assessment purposes, and the plaintiff appealed to superior court after the selectmen denied an abatement.

This court recently reiterated that:

It is well settled that the test in an abatement case is whether the taxpayer is paying more than his proportional share of taxes.... A plaintiff has the burden of proving the disproportion by a preponderance of the evidence.... The disproportion proved need not be disproportion with respect to similarly used property, but rather only with respect to 'other property in general.' "

Stevens v. City of Lebanon, 122 N.H. ---, 440 A.2d 451 (1982) (citations omitted).

By seeking an abatement, the plaintiff has assumed this burden. The Bedford Development Company must demonstrate "that the assessment placed on the subject property was disproportionately higher in relation to its true value than was the case as to the other property in the city." Berthiaume v. City of Nashua, 118 N.H. 646, 647, 392 A.2d 143, 144 (1978). Accord, Milford Props., Inc. v. Town of Milford, 119 N.H. 165, 167, 400 A.2d 41, 42 (1979); New England Power Co. v. Littleton, 114 N.H. 594, 599, 326 A.2d 698, 701 (1974).

In this case, the master found that the plaintiff had established that the Bedford Mall was assessed in excess of fair market value as of April 1, 1977. He found the true value to be $3,450,000 rather than $4,073,020. The master, however, recommended that the petition for abatement be dismissed because he found that the plaintiff had not established that its property was assessed disproportionately to other properties in Bedford. The master concluded that the plaintiff "ha(d) not met its burden of proof that (its) property was assessed with any different standard of valuation from that which was used in the assessment of all other properties in the Town of Bedford." The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that its taxes were disproportionate to those of other properties in general. Plaintiff argues that it met its burden by introducing evidence that the assessed value of the property exceeded fair market value and that the town used an assessment ratio of 100 percent. Plaintiff contends that these two facts lead to "an inescapable inference that the plaintiff's property was taxed at a higher ratio than other property generally in Bedford."

In denying an abatement, the master was bound by our holding in Ainsworth v. Claremont, 106 N.H. 85, 205 A.2d 356 (1964) which explained that in a tax abatement case:

"The assessment of a general property tax looks to the...