Kruse v. Town of Westford

• Decision Date: 01 February 1985
• Docket Number: No. 83-384,83-384
• Citation: 488 A.2d 770,145 Vt. 368
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: Devin KRUSE v. TOWN OF WESTFORD.

Page 770

488 A.2d 770

145 Vt. 368

Devin KRUSE v. TOWN OF WESTFORD.

No. 83-384.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Feb. 1, 1985.

Stevens & Clark, Winooski, for plaintiff-appellant.

Spokes, Foley & Stitzel, Burlington, for defendant-appellee.

Before BILLINGS, C.J., and HILL, UNDERWOOD, PECK and GIBSON, JJ.

PECK, Justice.

Since 1980 plaintiff Devin Kruse has owned property in the Town of Westford which included 10 acres of land and a house, both of which he purchased for $66,000. The present controversy arose in 1982 when the listers of the Town of Westford (town) reappraised plaintiff's property at $74,800. Subsequent appeals to the listers and to the local board of civil authority reduced the appraisal to $71,400. Pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 4461 plaintiff appealed the board's decision to the director of the property valuation and review division of the State Agency of Administration. The state board of appraisers (Board), appointed by the director to review the local board's assessment, found that plaintiff's property should be assessed at $71,400. From this determination he appeals to this Court. We affirm.

The plaintiff presents four claims for our review. First, he contends that the appraisal exceeds the fair market value; second, that the town failed to meet its burden of proof before the Board; third, that the Board's decision is not supported by sufficient evidence; and fourth, that the appraisal is unconstitutional.

In appeals taken to the state board of appraisers there is a presumption that the appraisal is valid and legal. Rutland Country Club, Inc. v. City of Rutland, 140 Vt. 142, 144, 436 A.2d 730, 731 (1981) (citing New England Power Co. v. Town of Barnet, 134 Vt. 498, 507, 367 A.2d 1363, 1369 (1976)). The burden then rests with the taxpayer to go forward with evidence to overcome the presumption. Rutland Country Club, supra. A taxpayer satisfies this burden when he introduces credible evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that his property was appraised at more than its fair market value. Id. 140 Vt. at 145, 436 A.2d at 732. The standard by which the trier must weigh the facts sought to be used to overcome the presumption is not one of credibility but rather of admissibility: "Does the fact offered in proof afford a basis for a rational inference of the fact to be proved?" Id. at 146, 436 A.2d at 732 (citing Tyrrell v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 109 Vt. 6, 21, 192 A. 184, 191 (1937)).

In the case at bar, the testimony offered by plaintiff was sufficient to overcome the presumption and "burst the bubble"; the presumption disappeared. Plaintiff overcame the presumption by introducing credible evidence tending to show his property was appraised at more than fair market value. This evidence included comparison with another residential property on a ten-acre lot which had been appraised at $65,600.

Even after the presumption of validity disappears, the burden of persuasion ^* on all contested issues remains with the taxpayer; it does not shift to the town. New England Power Co., supra, 134 Vt. at 508, 367 A.2d at 1369. The burden of persuading the trier of fact that his property is over-assessed, which is the underlying issue, remains with the taxpayer throughout the entire proceeding. Id.

Once the presumption of validity is overcome by the taxpayer, the town must produce evidence to justify its appraisal. Rutland Country Club, supra, 140 Vt. at 146, 436 A.2d at 732. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the Board must weigh the town's evidence against that of the taxpayer. Id. The town can prevail by either " 'demonstrating that the method of appraisal substantially complied with the relevant constitutional and statutory requirements, or [by substantiating] the appraisal with independent evidence relative to the fair market value of the subject property and the listed value of comparable properties within the town.' " Id. (quoting Leroux v. Town of Wheelock, 136 Vt. 396, 398, 392 A.2d 387, 389 (1978)).

I.

Plaintiff's first contention is that the appraisal value exceeds fair market value and therefore his property is incorrectly appraised. 32 V.S.A. § 3481. As indicated above, the town can prevail before the Board by substantiating its appraisal with independent evidence relative to the fair market value of the subject property and the listed value of comparable property. Leroux, supra. In this case the town compared the plaintiff's property to the one neighboring property offered by plaintiff as comparable. The town's expert testified that the comparable property was smaller and, unlike plaintiff's, was without a garage or fireplace. Thus, the town offered the type of evidence which, under the law, could be used to substantiate its assessment. This Court's function on appeal is to scrutinize the Board's actions in conducting its de novo review under 32 V.S.A. § 4467. We hold that the Board's finding of fair market value is supported by credible evidence and will not be disturbed. Connors v. Town of Dorset, 134 Vt. 233, 235, 356 A.2d 536, 537 (1976).

II.

Plaintiff's second claim is that the burden of proof as to the appraisal shifts to the town once the taxpayer overcomes the presumption of validity. We do not agree. As indicated above, we have held, and affirm here, that even after the presumption disappears, as it did in this case, the burden of proof, in the sense of burden of persuasion, on all contested issues remains with the taxpayer. Jeffer v. Town of Chester, 142 Vt. 23, 26, 451 A.2d 823, 824 (1982). Therefore, the town met its burden of producing evidence when its expert testified regarding the comparable property.

III.

Plaintiff's next claim is that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board's decision. In support of his claim he asserts that the Board had a duty to make specific findings concerning comparable properties and cannot "merely state that inequities exist." Town of Walden v Bucknam, 135 Vt. 326, 328, 376 A.2d 761, 763 (1977). In the instant case the record discloses clearly that the Board did make specific findings concerning the comparable property.

Plaintiff next directs our attention to the fact that the Board did not make findings concerning the various alleged structural or functional deficiencies brought to light by his evidence. However, the law requires only that the Board sift the evidence and make findings sufficient to indicate to the parties how it reached its ultimate conclusion. Rutland Country Club, supra, 140 Vt. at 146, 436 A.2d at 732. The Board satisfied this obligation.

As additional support for his claim that the Board relied on insufficient evidence, plaintiff attacks the accuracy of the findings concerning the property comparison. The Board found that the comparable did not have a garage or fireplace while the subject property had both. Further, the Board found the plaintiff's property contained 880 square feet and the comparable property 656 square feet. He asserts that these findings are either wrong or misleading.

The evidence showed that the subject property contained a fireplace. The plaintiff asserts that this bare finding is misleading since it does not take into account the testimony of the town's witness that the fireplace is offset by the comparable's superior view. The testimony of the witness is somewhat ambiguous on the point. Nevertheless, assuming plaintiff is correct, the Board, as the trier of fact, is under no obligation to accept, interpret, or apply evidence in accordance with the views of either party. The weight, credibility and persuasive effect of the evidence is for the Board to...