Fox Ridge Associates & Co. v. Board of Assessors of Marshfield

• Decision Date: 07 August 1984
• Citation: Fox Ridge Associates & Co. v. Board of Assessors of Marshfield, 467 N.E.2d 201, 392 Mass. 652 (Mass. 1984)
• Parties: FOX RIDGE ASSOCIATES & CO. v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF MARSHFIELD.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 201

467 N.E.2d 201

392 Mass. 652

FOX RIDGE ASSOCIATES & CO. v.BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF MARSHFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Suffolk.

Argued April 6, 1984.

Decided Aug. 7, 1984.

Walter L. Sullivan, Scituate, for taxpayer.

John F. Ridge, Cohasset, for Board of Assessors of Marshfield, submitted a brief.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, LIACOS, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.

HENNESSEY, Chief Justice.

The taxpayer, Fox Ridge Associates & Co.(Fox Ridge), an owner of land and residential buildings on Plain Street, Marshfield (the property), appeals from a decision by the Appellate Tax Board(board) allowing an abatement of real estate taxes assessed by the town of Marshfield(town) on the property for fiscal 1981.Fox Ridge asserts that the allowed abatement is too low, and claims that two factors in the board's determination of the fair cash value of the property were not supported by substantial evidence.The first factor is the income level used by the board as a basis for valuing the property by the income capitalization method.The second is the amount of expenses allowed by the board to determine net income of the property for an income capitalization valuation.

Substantial evidence is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."G.L. c. 30A, § 1(6), inserted by St.1954, c. 681, § 1.See, e.g., New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 465-466, 420 N.E.2d 298(1981).In reviewing whether the board's decision is supported by such evidence, we consider the decision in light of the entire record before the board, including evidence which fairly detracts from the weight of the evidence supporting the board's decision.See, e.g., Boston Edison Co. v. Assessors of Watertown, 387 Mass. 298, 302, 439 N.E.2d 763(1982);New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, supra.We conclude that the record before the board in this case contains substantial evidence supporting its decision.

The board used a gross income figure based on the 1980 rent rolls of the property to determine the fair cash value of the property as of January 1, 1980.This figure was introduced as part of the town's appraisal report on the property.Fox Ridge proposed an alternate income figure, based on the actual 1979 gross income of the property.The figure introduced by Fox Ridge was lower than that based on the rent rolls.The board rejected the actual 1979 gross income figure as an appropriate starting point, on the record before it, for developing an income stream to be capitalized in determining the property's fair cash value for January 1, 1980.The board stated that it chose to rely on the January, 1980, rent rolls in valuing the property because it determined that "the use of the actual rents received for calendar year 1979 would not fairly represent the potential gross income of the property."It rested this conclusion primarily on two subsidiary findings.First, it observed that "[t]he income shown by the rent rolls as of 1/1/80 was significantly higher than the actual rental income for calendar year 1979."Second, it noted that "[t]here was no testimony from appellant as to an exceptional vacancy or uncollectible rate on the property.There was no testimony as to increased rentals, but there was some testimony as to poor management at the property in 1978 prior to new management being hired."The record supports these subsidiary findings and Fox Ridge does not challenge them.

The parties disagreed about the proper starting point for establishing an income stream which could be used in conducting an income capitalization valuation of the property.Accordingly, choosing a proper starting point based on the figures presented to it was within the board's discretion and expertise." 'The market value of the property could not be proved with mathematical certainty and must ultimately rest in the realm of...