The 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
22-P-573
PATRICIA I. DRURY
vs.
BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF TEMPLETON.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The taxpayer, Patricia I. Drury, appeals from a decision of
a single member of the Appellate Tax Board (board) issued in
accordance with G. L. c. 58A, § 1A, denying an abatement of the
fiscal year 2020 1 tax assessment by the town of Templeton (town)
on the taxpayer's real property and improvements. Although it
is virtually impossible to discern the taxpayer's arguments from
the briefing, it appears that the taxpayer believes that a
receivership order from the Worcester Superior Court concerning
an adjoining property establishes that the town's valuation is
excessive.
1 Although the taxpayer suggests that we should abate her taxes
from 2008 to 2022, she challenged only the 2020 tax assessment
below.
We are unable to reach the taxpayer's issues on the record
before us. We have only such materials as the parties put
before us; it is the taxpayer's burden, as appellant, to provide
a record sufficient to support her claims on appeal. See Mass.
R. A. P. 18 (a), 365 Mass. 764 (1974); Hasouris v. Sorour, 92
Mass. App. Ct. 607, 610 n.4 (2018). We cannot discern from the
record before us what arguments or evidence were placed before
the board beyond what is mentioned in the board's decision. See
G. L. c. 58A, § 13 ("The court shall not consider any issue of
law which does not appear to have been raised in the proceedings
before the board"). 2 Although "some leniency is appropriate in
determining whether the papers of a self-represented litigant
comply with applicable court rules," Tynan v. Attorney Gen., 453
Mass. 1005, 1005 (2009), the taxpayer's unrepresented status
neither excuses her failure to provide us with the information
necessary to decide her appeal, see Greci v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
483 Mass. 1032, 1033 (2020), nor otherwise permits us to reach
her appeal's merits.
We do observe that, "[w]hen challenging an assessment
before the board, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing
2 The taxpayer appears to challenge the failure of the board to
record the hearing but presents no evidence that she complied
with the requirement that she request such recording in
accordance with 831 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.28(1) (2007), or that
she requested waiver of the fees for such recording.
2
its right to an abatement of the assessed tax." Boston Gas Co.
v. Assessors of Boston, 458 Mass. 715, 717 (2011). The board
determined that the taxpayer "offered no evidence to establish
that the assessed value of the subject property was excessive."
Because the taxpayer had the burden of proof, the taxpayer's
failure to present credible evidence that the property was worth
less than $150,000 defeated her abatement claim even in the
absence of any evidence from the town. Accordingly, the
taxpayer's attack on the town's evidence, method of proof, and
representation is irrelevant to this appeal.
We have reviewed the receiver's report mentioned in the
taxpayer's brief (even assuming that it was presented to the
board) and see no indication that it establishes that the
taxpayer's property is worth less than $150,000. Nor, on this
record, does it appear that the taxpayer provided any evidence
of the value of the property other than her son's testimony that
the property would sell for approximately $300,000. "As may any
trier of fact, the board could accept or reject and pick and
choose from evidence the parties present to it," provided it
articulates "an objectively adequate rationale for rejection of
the evidence." Turners Falls Ltd. Partnership v. Assessors of
Montague, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 732, 736 (2002). We see no
indication that the board acted improperly in concluding that
the taxpayer failed to provide credible (or, indeed, any)
3
evidence that the property was worth less than $150,000. See
Peterson v. Assessors of Boston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 430
(2004).
Decision of the Appellate Tax
Board affirmed.
By the Court (Wolohojian,
Shin & Ditkoff, JJ. 3),
Clerk
Entered: October 5, 2023.
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
4