Franklin County Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors

463 N.E.2d 554, 391 Mass. 1018, 1984 Mass. LEXIS 1498
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 7, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 463 N.E.2d 554 (Franklin County Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Franklin County Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors, 463 N.E.2d 554, 391 Mass. 1018, 1984 Mass. LEXIS 1498 (Mass. 1984).

Opinion

The taxpayer concedes that it did not, within statutory time limits, file appeals with the Appellate Tax Board (board) from the denial, by inaction of the board of assessors (assessors), of the taxpayer’s applications for abatement of local real estate taxes. G. L. c. 59, §§ 64, 65, 65C. The taxpayer argues that because the assessors continued to consider its applications after the expiration of the appeal periods, the assessors should be estopped to deny the timeliness of the taxpayer’s appeals to the board.

Generally we have not looked with favor on contentions that public officials are estopped from relying on statutory or other rights. See Phipps Prods. Corp. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 387 Mass. 687, 693-694 (1982), and cases cited. We have not recognized estoppel as a relevant consideration when the timeliness of a taxpayer’s appeal to the board has been considered. See Corea v. Assessors of Bedford, 384 Mass. 809 (1981). [1019]*1019We would not, in any event, recognize principles of estoppel in this case because, in failing to appeal, the taxpayer cannot fairly be said to have relied reasonably on the assessors’ continued consideration of its applications. To allow the assessors’ continued consideration of its abatement applications without those applications being deemed to be denied, the taxpayer had only to file timely written consent to the assessors’ not deciding any application for abatement within three months of the date of its filing. G. L. c. 59, § 64. The board properly allowed the assessors’ motions to dismiss the taxpayer’s applications for abatement for lack of jurisdiction.

Jack D. Curtiss for the taxpayer. Edward P. Smith for the Board of Assessors of Greenfield.

Decision of the Appellate Tea Board affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Morton Street LLC v. Sheriff of Suffolk County
453 Mass. 485 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2009)
Garrity v. Board of Assessors
682 N.E.2d 935 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1997)
Harrington v. Fall River Housing Authority
538 N.E.2d 24 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1989)
O'BLENES v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Lynn
492 N.E.2d 354 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1986)
Good v. Commissioner of Revenue
395 Mass. 686 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
463 N.E.2d 554, 391 Mass. 1018, 1984 Mass. LEXIS 1498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-county-realty-trust-v-board-of-assessors-mass-1984.