Board of Assessors of Woburn v. Ramada Inns, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1976 |
| Citation | 357 N.E.2d 776,371 Mass. 894 |
| Parties | BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF WOBURN v. RAMADA INNS, INC. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Daniel P. Kiley, Jr., Lawrence and Charlotte Anne Perretta, Boston, for the Board of Assessors of Woburn.
Edward I. Masterman, Andrew C. Culbert, Boston and Neal C. Tully, Newtonville, for Ramada Inns, Inc.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and REARDON, BRAUCHER, KAPLAN and WILKINS, JJ. RESCRIPT.
The assessors appeal from the determination by the Appellate Tax Board (board) of the fair cash value on January 1, 1974, of a partially completed motel owned by Ramada Inns, Inc. (Ramada). The assessors (a) challenge the use by Ramada's expert of the cost of construction of the motel as a basis for his opinion of the motel's fair cash value, arguing that his testimony should have been struck on their motion; (b) challenge the board's determination that the motel was seventy-five percent completed on January 1, 1974; and (c) argue that there was no evidence to support the board's finding of fair cash value. (a) The admissibility of the opinion of Ramada's expert is contested on the ground that the cost of construction was not a proper method of valuing the premises using the 'reproduction cost less depreciation' method of valuation and on the ground that the expert relied on hearsay evidence of construction costs. Although Ramada contracted with a subsidiary to construct a motel, almost ninety per cent of its cost was established by subcontractors' bids. In determining the fair cash value of an unfinished building, it was within the discretion of the board to rely on the cost of construction. See Jordan Marsh Co. v. Assessors of Quincy, --- Mass. ---, ---, a 331 N.E.2d 61 (1975) and cases cited. An appraisal by Ramada's expert, showing the cost of construction of the motel, was admitted in evidence without objection. A motion to strike his testimony, which also presented the cost of construction of the motel, was based on 'lack of foundation and lack of proper method. These general grounds did not fairly raise the hearsay objection, concerning the admission of construction costs, which is now asserted. This is not a case where a real estate expert testified concerning reproduction costs, a subject beyond his area of qualification. See Tigar v. Mystic River Bridge Authority, 329 Mass. 514, 519--520, 109 N.E.2d 148 (1952). In any event, if the assessors wished to challenge the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Long
...overruled on other grounds by State v. Matulewicz, 198 N.J.Super. 474, 487 A.2d 772, 777 (1985); Board of Assessors of Woburn v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 371 Mass. 894, 357 N.E.2d 776, 776 (1976) ("The[ ] general grounds [of `lack of foundation and lack of proper method'] did not fairly raise the......
-
Blakeley v. Board of Assessors of Boston
...of a partially completed building has been held to be within the discretion of the board. See Assessors of Woburn v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 371 Mass. 894, 357 N.E.2d 776 (1976). We have generally viewed with disfavor the use of the depreciated reproduction cost approach to valuation except wher......
-
Hero Intern. Corp. v. Com., 92-P-630
...on the day after the testimony was completed, the judge did not err in denying the motion. See Board of Assessors of Woburn v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 371 Mass. 894, 895, 357 N.E.2d 776 (1976); Commonwealth v. Theberge, 330 Mass. 520, 527, 115 N.E.2d 719 In any event, the plaintiff's arguments a......