Donovan v. City of Haverhill
| Decision Date | 28 November 1923 |
| Citation | 247 Mass. 69,141 N.E. 564 |
| Parties | DONOVAN et al. v. CITY OF HAVERHILL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Essex County; E. B. Bishop, Judge.
Action by James A. Donovan and others, trustees, under the provisions of G. L. c. 59, § 65, for an abatement of taxes assessed by the City of Haverhill on real estate. On report, after a tinding against petitioners. Judgment for the City.
J. A. Donovan and J. M. Hargedon, both of Lawrence, for petitioners.
A. F. Priest, of Haverhill, for respondent.
This action came before the Superior Court, under the provisions of G. L. c. 59, § 65, on appeal from the refusal of the assessors of city of Haverhill to abate taxes assessed in 1921 upon the real estate of the petitioners, and is before this court upon the facts and rulings contained in the report of a judge of that court.
The property assessed was leased to tenants with terms commencing some years before, and ending some years after, the 1921 taxable year. When leased, the rents reserved were fair; when the tax was laid in 1921 the properties could have been rented for several thousand dollars in excess of the rent paid if the leases could have been canceled. The petitioners admitted that if the property had not been leased the assessment of $223,725 would have been a proper assessment.
At the time the assessors made the valuation and determined the assessments upon the property of the petitioners for 1921, they took into consideration the sale prices of similar parcels of land in the near vicinity, after comparing the availability of such land with the land in question; and in assessing the buildings they took into consideration the original cost thereof, with allowances for depreciation and appreciation and replacement cost. They also knew the terms of all the leases; and after considering what effect, if any, the terms of the leases should have upon the valuation of the property, determined that the owners were not getting the full rental value or return from the property, and that the fact that leases upon parts of the premises would not expire for 3, 4, 12, and 15 years, and the fact that the return from these leases then, in 1921, might be less than if the premises were rented from month to month or from year to year, should not for the purposes of taxation be taken into consideration by them in determining the fair cash value of the property. In determining the fair cash value of the property in 1921 the assessors did not, except as above stated, take into consideration the existing leases.
The property was assessed for the year 1921 proportionately with the surrounding property and with the property in that vicinity. The fair cash value of the property, if the leases are not considered as an incumbrance affecting the value thereof was in 1921 at least $223,725. The fair cash value of the property if the leases should be taken into consideration in fixing the fair cash value, that is, should have been considered as incumbrances affecting the fair cash value for purposes of taxation, was in 1921, $198,000. The surrender value of the leases on April 1, 1921, was at least $25,725.
It is the contention of the petitioners that the outstanding leases are incumbrances on this property which substantially diminish its fair cash value; and that the assessment, considered in reference to all the uses to which it may be put, was in excess of its fair cash value. Ordinarily, in tax and in eminent domain cases, the ‘fair cash value’ of property as the basis for an assessment or for the ascertainment of adequate compensation for the owner is the fair market value of that property at the time of the assessment or taking, expressed in the price which someone will pay for it in open market. National Bank of Commerce v. New Bedford, 155 Mass. 313, 315, 29 N. E. 532;Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 233 Mass. 190, 206, 124 N. E. 21. ‘Taxes on real estate shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Old Colony R. Co. v. Assessors of Boston
...Such inequality arises from business and economic conditions. It cannot be attributed to the taxing statute. Donovan v. Haverhill, 247 Mass. 69, 141 N.E. 564, 30 A.L.R. 358;Sanchez Morales & Co., Inc. v. Gallardo, 1 Cir., 18 F.2d 550, 552. We conclude that the statute requiring the payment ......
-
Old Colony R. Co. v. Assessors of Boston
... ... It cannot be ... attributed to the taxing statute. Donovan v ... Haverhill, 247 Mass. 69 ... Sanchez Morales & Co. Inc ... v. Gallardo, 18 F.2d 550, 552 ... v. Grosjean, 301 U.S. 412. The importance of ... the payment of a tax to the city may to some degree depend ... upon its amount, and the difference to the public treasury ... ...
-
Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consol. Gas Co.
... ... Boston Belting Co ... v. Boston, 183 Mass. 254 ... Donovan v ... Haverhill, 247 Mass. 69 ... Harris Trust & Savings ... Bank v. Earl, 26 F.2d 617. Somers ... cited, depended upon the construction of statutes, each of ... which provided that the city should pay "the fair value ... of said property for the purposes of its use by said city ... ...
-
Supervisor of Assessments of Allegany County v. Ort Children Trust Four
...262 S.E.2d 609 (1979); Springfield Marine Bank v. Property Tax Appeal Bd., 44 Ill.2d 428, 256 N.E.2d 334 (1970); Donovan v. City of Haverhill, 247 Mass. 69, 141 N.E. 564 (1923); Crossroads Center (Rochester), Inc. v. Comm'r of Taxation, 286 Minn. 440, 176 N.W.2d 530 (1970); Demoulas v. Town......