KHOSHATEFEH v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF NEWTON (2022)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Ashkan Khoshatefeh appeals from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board), which affirmed a decision of the board of assessors of Newton (assessors) that denied his application for a water leak abatement on a water bill for a rental property owned by him. Khoshatefeh argues that the water bill unfairly included several years’ worth of adjustments resulting from a “faulty [water] meter.” We affirm.

We take the following facts from the assessors’ brief, and the documents included in their addendum.² In 2008, the city of Newton launched a publicity campaign to notify residents and homeowners about an initiative to change out all water meters and replace them with an upgraded model. Homeowners were informed that they would receive estimated water bills based on past usage until their meters were replaced, after which they would receive reconciled bills based on actual usage. Despite repeated efforts to have Khoshatefeh schedule a time to have his water meter replaced, he failed to do so. Khoshatefeh continued to receive estimated bills until his meter was finally replaced on September 13, 2017, after which he received a reconciled bill for over ten thousand dollars.³ While Khoshatefeh received a partial abatement of $3,603.68, a balance of approximately eight thousand dollars remained.

Khoshatefeh then filed an application for a water leak abatement that is the subject of this appeal. Khoshatefeh argued that it was unfair for the city “to go back so many years due to a faulty/old meter that was their responsibility to replace.” The assessors denied the application on two bases; city rules provide that (1) only owner-occupied properties are eligible for water leak abatements and (2) “[n]o abatement will be issued on catch up bills necessitated by prior estimated bills.” Khoshatefeh appealed to the board, which affirmed the assessors’ decision.⁴

We will not reverse or modify the board's decision “if it is based on substantial evidence and a correct application of the law.” Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 458 Mass. 715, 721 (2011). Khoshatefeh does not dispute the factual or legal bases of the board's decision. In particular, he does not dispute that the property is a rental property or that the bill is a catch up bill necessitated by prior estimated bills. Nor does Khoshatefeh argue that the city's rules for water leak abatements are impermissible for any reason. We discern no error in the board's decision.

Khoshatefeh instead argues that, as a matter of fairness, there should be a limitation on how far back bill adjustments resulting from faulty meters may be made. Even assuming we could reverse or modify the board's decision based on this argument, we discern no reason to do so in the circumstances of this case. Nothing in the record substantiates Khoshatefeh's argument that the bill at issue is unfair. The record demonstrates that the city contacted Khoshatefeh about replacing his old meter, that he knew or should have known that he was receiving estimated bills until his meter was replaced, after which he would receive a reconciled bill, and that he was responsible for the delay in the replacement of his meter.

Decision of the Appellate Tax Board affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Khoshatefeh's brief does not include a statement of the underlying facts. His appendix contains what appears to be North Carolina's rules for public water utilities. Where Khoshatefeh had the burden of producing those portions of the record necessary to support his arguments, see Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 637, 641 (1998), we will not speculate on the existence of any missing documents.

3.   The precise amount of the bill is not in the record.

4.   We note that the board did not issues findings of fact, and neither party requested them. See G. L. c. 58A, § 13.