City of Barre v. Town of Orange

Decision Date24 June 1980
Docket NumberNo. 475-79,475-79
Citation138 Vt. 484,417 A.2d 939
PartiesCITY OF BARRE v. TOWN OF ORANGE.
CourtVermont Supreme Court

John F. Nicholls, City Atty., Barre, for plaintiff.

Otterman & Allen, Bradford, for defendant.

Before BARNEY, C. J., DALEY, LARROW and HILL, JJ., and SHANGRAW, C. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

DALEY, Justice.

This is an appeal by the Town of Orange from a decision of the board of appraisers. 32 V.S.A. § 4466; 3 V.S.A. § 815(a). The property involved is the City of Barre's reservoir, located in the Town of Orange. Initially, the town listers appraised this property at $448,476, and this appraisal was upheld by the board of civil authority. 32 V.S.A. § 4404. The taxpayer's further appeal was heard by the board of appraisers appointed by the commissioner of taxes. See 32 V.S.A. §§ 4461, 4462, 4465, 4467. The board lowered the appraisal to $350,000, but this decision was subsequently reversed because of inadequate findings, and remanded to the board. City of Barre v. Town of Orange, 136 Vt. 644, 399 A.2d 176 (1979) (mem.). Based on the original evidence before it, the board made new findings in which it found that the fair market value of the property in question is $275,000. This is the decision that is before us today. We reverse.

At the hearing before the board, the town introduced evidence of the listers' appraisal, and evidence of the fair market value. At this point, a presumption of validity and legality attached to the listers' actions, and the burden of going forward shifted to the taxpayer. Welch v. Town of Ludlow, 136 Vt. 83, 86, 385 A.2d 1105, 1107 (1978); Schweizer v. Town of Pomfret, 134 Vt. 436, 438, 365 A.2d 134, 135 (1976). Although the parties agreed that there were no similar properties in the Town of Orange, the taxpayer's expert nonetheless maintained that certain properties were "comparable." He testified as to the listed value of these properties, and concluded that the taxpayer's list was, as a matter of equity, too high, and that the reservoir property should have been appraised at $275,000. This was the evidence relied on by the board to find that the property's fair market value is $275,000.

Because there are no substantially similar properties in the town, this appeal is governed principally by 32 V.S.A. § 4467, Village of Morrisville Water & Light Department v. Town of Hyde Park, 134 Vt. 325, 330, 360 A.2d 882, 885 (1976), which provides in part:

Upon the appeal to the board of appraisers or the court of chancery, the board or court shall proceed de novo and determine the correct valuation of the property as promptly as practicable. The board or court shall take into account the requirements of law as to valuation, and the provisions of Chapter I, Article 9 of the Constitution of Vermont and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. If the board or court finds that the listed value of the property subject to appeal does not correspond to the listed value of comparable properties within the town, the board or court shall set said property in the list at a corresponding value.

The town argues that the board erred by admitting evidence of corresponding listed values, because the notice of appeal specifies that fair market value is the issue on appeal. Although 32 V.S.A. § 4461(a) does require that, in an appeal to the commissioner (now director), the notice of appeal shall set "forth briefly the grounds upon which the appeal is based," we do not read this language to limit the scope of the appeal. Generally speaking, the scope of appeals is not limited by the notice of appeal. See Town of Lyndon v. Burnett's Contracting Co., 138 Vt. 102, 108, 413 A.2d 1204, 1207 (1980). In the area of tax appeals, where review is de novo, 32 V.S.A. § 4467, we are especially reluctant to limit the scope of inquiry. See Punderson v. Town of Chittenden, 136 Vt. 221, 223, 388 A.2d 373, 374-75 (1978). We decline to do so here.

The town also challenges the finding of fair market value as not supported by a proper method of valuation. Fair market value is the price which the property will bring in the market, taking into consideration its availability, use and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Vanderminden v. Town of Wells
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • June 28, 2013
    ...property tax appeals that there are many mass appraisal models in use in Vermont towns. As we observed in City of Barre v. Town of Orange, 138 Vt. 484, 486, 417 A.2d 939, 941 (1980), “many different methods exist for determining fair market value.” See generally Int'l Ass'n of Assessing Off......
  • Kachadorian v. Town of Woodstock
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1988
    ...in the market place taking into consideration its availability, use and limitations. 32 V.S.A. § 4467; City of Barre v. Town of Orange, 138 Vt. 484, 486, 417 A.2d 939, 941 (1980). This value should not be based on only one criterion. Bloomer v. Town of Danby, 135 Vt. 56, 57-58, 370 A.2d 194......
  • Kachadorian v. Town of Woodstock
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1984
    ...that the property is listed comparably to corresponding properties in town. 32 V.S.A. §§ 4467, 4601. See City of Barre v. Town of Orange, 138 Vt. 484, 487, 417 A.2d 939, 941 (1980); New England Power Co. v. Town of Barnet, 134 Vt. 498, 509, 367 A.2d 1363, 1370 (1976). When comparable proper......
  • Adams v. Town of Sudbury
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 22, 2016
    ...have discretion to use different appraisal methods to value property according to fair market value. See City of Barre v. Town of Orange, 138 Vt. 484, 486, 417 A.2d 939, 941 (1980) (“[M]any different methods exist for determining fair market value.”). However, as a logical extension of our ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT