Nicholas Mango v. Board of Assessors of Marblehead.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: November 15, 2024
• Docket: 23-P-1171
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-1171

NICHOLAS MANGO

vs.

BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF MARBLEHEAD.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The appellant, Nicholas Mango, and his wife own a two-

story, waterfront condominium unit located in the town of

Marblehead (town). The unit has an ocean view, three bedrooms,

and two and a half bathrooms. In 2020 and 2021, Mango applied

for property tax abatements for the unit because he claimed that

it "[could not] be safely occupied," and was "uninhabitable and

in dangerous condition." The town's board of assessors

(assessors) granted a small abatement for the unit for fiscal

year 2020 but denied one for fiscal year 2021. Mango appealed

both decisions to the Appellate Tax Board (board). The board

ruled in favor of the assessors, finding that Mango failed to

meet his burden of proving that the fair cash value of the unit for the fiscal years at issue was lower than its assessed value.

On appeal, Mango maintains that the board's decision is not

supported by substantial evidence, its findings are clearly

erroneous, and it should have determined that the unit is worth

nothing. We affirm the board's decision.

"We accord the board's decision great deference and will

not disturb its decision 'if [it] is based on both substantial

evidence and a correct application of the law.'" AA Transp. Co.

v. Commissioner of Revenue, 454 Mass. 114, 118 (2009), quoting

Boston Professional Hockey Ass'n v. Commissioner of Revenue, 443

Mass. 276, 285 (2005). "Substantial evidence is 'such evidence

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.'" West Beit Olam Cemetery Corp. v. Assessors of

Wayland, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 677, 680 (2016), quoting Boston Gas

Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 458 Mass. 715, 721 (2011). "When

challenging an assessment before the board, the taxpayer bears

the burden of establishing its right to an abatement of the

assessed tax." Boston Gas. Co., supra, at 717. "[T]he board is

entitled to 'presume that the valuation made by the assessors

was valid unless the taxpayer[] sustained the burden of proving

the contrary.'" General Elec. Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393

Mass. 591, 598 (1984), quoting Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great

Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974). To meet its burden, the

taxpayer must present "persuasive evidence of overvaluation

2 either by exposing flaws or errors in the assessors' method of

valuation, or by introducing affirmative evidence of value which

undermines the assessors' valuation." General Elec. Co., 393

Mass. at 600, quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389

Mass. 848, 855 (1983).

Mango did not sustain his burden here. Although we are

troubled by the condominium trust's prolonged failure to remedy

the noncompliant fire escape and water leakage at Mango's unit,

we disagree with Mango's assertion that the board ignored those

defects. Rather, the board concluded that Mango failed to prove

that the defects rendered his unit uninhabitable and that the

assessors "credibly and reasonably accounted for deficiencies in

the common areas." Notably, the fiscal year 2021 assessment of

the unit was less than half of the assessment in fiscal year

2016. Mango's condominium unit was assessed in 2016 at

$900,000, but the final assessments for the unit for 2020 and

2021 were $453,3000 and $408,000 respectively. Although Mango

offered testimony from a structural engineer that the unit's

fire escape was noncompliant, the engineer did not produce

evidence that undermined the assessors' valuations. Mango also

failed to confirm the presence of mold through reliable

evidence, and the town's board of health did not mention mold in

its 2015 citation to the condominium trust.

3 Mango contends that the board erred by concluding that he

failed to meet his burden because he offered no evidence of

comparable sales. Although comparable sales is not the only

method to determine the value of a property, see Benevolent &

Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 65 v. Lawrence Redev. Auth.,

33 Mass. App. Ct. 701, 702 n.2 (1992), citing Correia v. New

Bedford Redev. Auth., 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978), Mango did not

offer evidence of the unit's value by any other accepted method.

He introduced testimony from a real estate appraiser, who opined

that the unit has "zero market value" because it is not

habitable, but the appraiser did not provide an appraisal report

for the unit and in fact testified that such a report would be

speculative or unreliable. Because the appraiser's opinion

about the unit's habitability did not amount to "persuasive

evidence" of "flaws or errors in the assessors' method of

valuation," or "affirmative evidence of value which undermines

the assessors' valuation," General Elec. Co., 393 Mass. at 600,

quoting Donlon, supra at 855, the board did not err in rejecting

it.

Finally, Mango contends that the board improperly relied on

statements made by an assistant assessor regarding a purported

settlement with the town, but no such settlement was mentioned

in the board's decision. Nor did the board err in concluding

that Mango failed to prove that his options for obtaining

4 insurance coverage for the unit were exhausted or that the

condominium trust did not insure the property; Mango showed only

that his ongoing litigation against the trust was not covered by

its master insurance policy. Despite Mango's claim that the

unit should be valued at "zero dollars," he did not present

persuasive evidence demonstrating the unit had no value or that

the assessors' valuations were flawed. To the extent we have

not specifically addressed any of the appellant's arguments, we

have considered all of them and see no basis on which to disturb

the board's finding. The decision of the board is affirmed.

So ordered.

By the Court (Neyman, Singh & Toone, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: November 15, 2024.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.