Townsend v. Town of Middlebury, 218-75
| Decision Date | 17 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 218-75,218-75 |
| Citation | 365 A.2d 515,134 Vt. 438 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Winthrop TOWNSEND and Marie Boisvert v. TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY. |
Winthrop Townsend, pro se.
Jon C. Stahl of Langrock & Sperry, Middlebury, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, DALEY, LARROW, and BILLINGS, JJ.
Appellees are the owners of a gas station located on a one-acre plot of land situated on U.S. Route 7 in the Town of Middlebury. The town, appellant here, underwent a complete re-appraisal of all its real property for the tax year beginning April 1, 1974. As a result thereof, the appraised valuation of appellees' property was raised from $32,000.00 to $86,100.00. Appellees brought their grievance with this new figure to the board of listers. No change, however, in the appraisal amount was felt to be called for by the listers. Accordingly, appellees presented their appeal to the town board of civil authority. The board upheld the value set by the listers.
Pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 4461, appellees then filed an appeal with the Vermont Commissioner of Taxes from the decision of the board of civil authority. Hearing on the appeal was held before the State Appeals Board in Middlebury on March 18, 1975. There, appellee Townsend contended that the value fixed by the listers was not representative of the property's fair market value since the location was subject to a renewable lease and pre-emptive purchase option for $20,000.00 in favor of the Getty Oil Company. The town, by its counsel, objected to the board's consideration of this agreement on the grounds that such agreements are not relevant factors, given the statutory mandate of 32 V.S.A. § 4467, in the appraisal of real property for tax purposes. The town further argued that to take the lease/option into account would be tantamount to promoting a system of 'unilateral tax stabilization' detrimental to the public interest.
Subsuquently the board issued its findings and order in which it stated, '. . . the effect of the lease and purchase option should be reflected for tax purposes.' Therefore the board decided that the initial valuation should be reduced to $64,500.00 to account for the lease/option agreement. The town has filed the current appeal from this determination of the board.
The issue presented to this Court is whether the Vermont State Appeals Board erred when it reduced the appraised value of appellees' property due to the existence of the lease and option agreement.
Title 32 V.S.A. § 4467 sets the standard to be followed by the board in tax appeals. '(T)he board or court shall proceed de novo and determine the correct valuation of the property . . ..' By these terms, the board is directed to determine the proper fair market value to be allocated the property. Town of Barnet v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 131 Vt. 578, 313 A.2d 392 (1973). The question before us is whether a lease/option agreement should enter into the board's consideration of fair market value for purposes of taxation. While the statutes are silent on this matter, some direction is afforded by 32 V.S.A. § 3481(1), which states:
'Appraisal value' shall mean the estimated fair market value of property. In determining such fair market value the listers shall take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schultz v. TM Florida-Ohio Realty Ltd., Partnership
...regarding the fair market value of the property. 410 Mich. at 449-450, 302 N.W.2d at 167, 171. 4 And in Townsend v. Town of Middlebury, 134 Vt. 438, 440, 365 A.2d 515, 517 (1976), the Vermont Supreme Court, in deciding that a valuation of commercial property should give weight to income rec......
-
City and County of Denver v. Board of Assessment Appeals of State of Colo., 91SC775
...to that figure. See Wynwood Apartments, Inc. v. Board of Revision, 59 Ohio St.2d 34, 391 N.E.2d 346 (1979); Townsend v. Town of Middlebury, 134 Vt. 438, 365 A.2d 515, 517 (1976) ("any attempted fraud ... would be readily discoverable through resort to the judicial process"). We note that in......
-
Franks v. Town of Essex. Rockingham Area Cmty. Land Trust
...of 32 V.S.A. § 3481 is consistent with our application of the statute in other contexts. In the case of Townsend v. Town of Middlebury, 134 Vt. 438, 365 A.2d 515 (1976), this Court considered the impact of a renewable lease and a preemptive purchase option on a property's fair market value ......
-
Bennett Estate v. Travelers Ins. Co.
... ... State v. Putnam, 137 Vt. 410, 413, 407 A.2d 161, 162 (1979); Town of Putney v. Town of Brookline, 126 Vt. 194, 200, 225 A.2d 388, 392 ... ...