Lorantos v. Board of Assessors

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Lorantos v. Board of Assessors

361 N.E.2d 1253, 372 Mass. 865

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 31, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 361 N.E.2d 1253 (Lorantos 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

Lorantos v. Board of Assessors, 361 N.E.2d 1253, 372 Mass. 865 (Mass. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In Assessors of Saugus v. Baumann, 370 Mass. 36 (1976), we held that the Appellate Tax Board has no jurisdiction of hardship abatement cases arising under G. L. c. 59, § 5, Eighteenth, as amended through St. 1965, c. 620, § 2, which exempts from property taxation “[a]ny portion of the estates of persons who by reason of age, infirmity and poverty are in the judgment of the assessors unable to contribute fully toward the public charges.” We indicated that in case of error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the assessors, the remedy lay in an action in the nature of certiorari. G. L. c. 249, § 4. The present cases (for several tax periods) are in substance the same as the Baumann case, and here, as there, the Appellate Tax Board erroneously assumed jurisdiction of the taxpayer’s appeals from the actions of the assessors. On the assessors’ appeals to this court, the present taxpayer, as appellee, urges us to reconsider and overrule the Baumann case. We have reconsidered the case and decline to overrule it. Accordingly, the decisions of the Appellate Tax Board are reversed, and the cases are remanded to the board where the taxpayer’s appeals from the actions of the assessors are to be dismissed.

So ordered.

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

In Assessors of Saugus v. Baumann, 370 Mass. 36 (1976), we held that the Appellate Tax Board has no jurisdiction of hardship abatement cases arising under G. L. c. 59, § 5, Eighteenth, as amended through St. 1965, c. 620, § 2, which exempts from property taxation “[a]ny portion of the estates of persons who by reason of age, infirmity and poverty are in the judgment of the assessors unable to contribute fully toward the public charges.” We indicated that in case of error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the assessors, the remedy lay in an action in the nature of certiorari. G. L. c. 249, § 4. The present cases (for several tax periods) are in substance the same as the Baumann case, and here, as there, the Appellate Tax Board erroneously assumed jurisdiction of the taxpayer’s appeals from the actions of the assessors. On the assessors’ appeals to this court, the present taxpayer, as appellee, urges us to reconsider and overrule the Baumann case. We have reconsidered the case and decline to overrule it. Accordingly, the decisions of the Appellate Tax Board are reversed, and the cases are remanded to the board where the taxpayer’s appeals from the actions of the assessors are to be dismissed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 N.E.2d 1253, 372 Mass. 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorantos-v-board-of-assessors-mass-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack