James McManus v. Town of Wallingford (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiffs have taken this appeal from the Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) and Shelby P. Jackson, III, Assessor, in valuing and assessing certain real property owned by the plaintiffs located at 86 Liney Hall Lane, Wallingford, Connecticut (property).

The defendants conducted a mass revaluation of all real property in Wallingford as of October 1, 2005 which is the pertinent date of value in this appeal.   The property is the family home of the plaintiffs and was completed in April 2007.   This appeal is from the grand list of October 1, 2007, although the issue before the court concerns the fair market value of the property on October 1, 2005.   The assessor determined that the property had a fair market value as of October 1, 2005 of $606,200.00, which computes at 70% to an assessment of $424,340.00.   The plaintiffs appealed the assessor's valuation to the Board which reduced the fair market value to $585,300.00, which computes at 70% to $409,710.00.   This appeal, claiming that the assessment was excessive, was then filed by the plaintiffs.

The appeal was tried on December 11, 2009.   The witnesses were the plaintiff James D. McManus, the plaintiff's appraiser Philip W. Ball, and the defendant's appraiser, Donald Nitz. Each of the appraisers examined the property in 2009 but trended their respective opinions as to fair market value back to the revaluation date of October 1, 2005.

In the case of Konover v. West Hartford, 242 Conn. 727 (1997), the Supreme Court clarified the function of the trial court in an appeal pursuant to Section 12-117a as follows:

Section 112-117a, which allows taxpayers to appeal the decisions of municipal boards of tax review to the Superior Court, “provide[s] a method by which an owner of property may directly call in question the valuation placed by assessors upon his property ․” (Citations omitted.)   In a § 12-117a appeal, the trial court performs a two step function.  “The burden, in the first instance, is upon the plaintiff to show that he has, in fact, been aggrieved by the action of the board in that his property has been over assessed.”   (Citations omitted.)   In this regard, “[M]ere overvaluation is sufficient to justify redress under [§ 12-117a], and the court is not limited to a review of whether an assessment has been unreasonable or discriminatory or has resulted in substantial overvaluation.”  (Citations omitted.)  “Whether a property has been overvalued for tax assessment purposes is a question of fact for the trier.”  (Citations omitted.)  “The trier arrives at his own conclusions as to the value of land by weighing the opinion of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and his own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value including his own view of the property.”  (Citations omitted).

Only after the court determines that the taxpayer has met his burden of proving that the assessor's valuation was excessive and that the refusal of the board of tax review to alter the assessment was improper, however, may the court then proceed to the second step in a § 12-117a appeal and exercise its equitable power to “grant such relief as to justice and equity appertains ․” (Citations omitted.)  “If a taxpayer is found to be aggrieved by the decision of the board of tax review, the court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the applicant's property.”  (Citations omitted.)  “If the court finds that the property has been in fact overvalued, it has the power to, and should, correct the valuation.”  (Citations omitted.)  Id.

The property is an irregularly shaped three-acre suburban residential lot located on a private road with access over a well constructed private bridge.   The Muddy River and a high tension power line cross the northwest corner of the property approximately three hundred feet from the house.   The property is serviced by telephone, electric and cable television.   It has a private well and septic system.   The neighborhood is semi-rural consisting of farmland and single-family dwellings.   The zoning is residential with 2.75 acres as the minimum lot size.   The vacant lot was purchased on May 12, 2006 for $34,200.00.   The property is improved with a colonial style residence with 3,871 square feet of living area, eleven rooms, four bedrooms, two and one-half bathrooms, an unfinished basement and a three-car garage.   The private road is maintained by the properties on the road at an average per house annual cost of $750-$1,000.

The plaintiff James D. McManus testified that his cost to construct the home was $370,000 for the building and land improvements, and $34,200 for the land.   Although his appraiser, Mr. Ball, used direct sales comparison to evaluate the property, Mr. McManus claims that his property has a fair market value of $404,200.00 based on his total costs of the construction.   When he appeared before the Board on March 15, 2008 he submitted an application for a reduction under oath stating that the market value of the property was $540,000.00.   The Board reduced the fair market value of the land to $150,000, and left the improvements with a fair market value of $435,300.00 resulting in a total assessment of $409,710.   The reports of both appraisers were offered in evidence.   Both appraisers used the direct sales approach to determine the fair market value of the property.   Each appraiser included as one of his comparables property located at 16 Stonybrook Road in Wallingford, and Mr. Nitz gave that comparable the most weight in arriving at his opinion as to fair market value.

Mr. Ball's report was described by him as a “short form narrative appraisal.”   Using the direct sales approach he produced four sales that he deemed comparable.   Adjustments were made to the comparables so as to make each property truly comparable to the subject property.   His report does not indicate the specifics of the adjustments which makes it difficult to evaluate the validity of his conclusions.   With respect to the comparable property at 16 Stonybrook Road his report indicates “no tension wires,” but he testified that they were in the area.   Mr. Nitz described this property as being “bordered by and in full view of the same power line that is also located to the rear of the subject property.”   There was no evidence offered by Mr. Ball as to any specific adjustment made to that comparable because of the absence of high tension wires.   Mr. Ball came up with a per square foot value of $140.00 for the subject property but multiplied that sum by a building size of 3,442 square feet, resulting in his valuation of fair market value of $482,000.   The correct square foot measurement of the building size is 3,871 square feet or 429 more than the size used by Mr. Ball. This correction would add $60,000 to Mr. Ball's opinion as to fair market value for a total of $542,000.

Mr. Nitz's report includes a detailed listing of positive and negative dollar adjustments to his three comparable properties in support of his ultimate opinion that the fair market value of the property is $605,000.   The court finds that Mr. Nitz's report and testimony is more persuasive than that of Mr. Ball.

The plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the assessment by the Board is excessive.   Based on all the evidence the court finds that the plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of proof.

The appeal is dismissed.

William L. Hadden, Jr., J.T.R.

Hadden, William L., J.T.R.