Case Title: Barrett v. Town of Warren

Citation: 179 Vt. 134, 2005 VT 107, 892 A.2d 152

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-09-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Barrett v. Town of Warren (2003-545); 179 Vt. 134; 892 A.2d 152

2005 VT 107

[Filed 16-Sep-2005]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 03-Nov-2005]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2005 VT 107

                                No. 2003-545


  William S. Barrett	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Property Valuation and 
                                                 Review Division


  Town of Warren	                         November Term, 2004


  Redford E. Roberts, Appraiser

  William S. Barrett, Pro Se, Warren, Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Glenn C. Howland of McKee, Giuliani & Cleveland, P.C., Montpelier, for
    Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned 

       ¶  1.  REIBER, J.   The Town of Warren appeals a decision by the
  state appraiser reducing the listed value of taxpayer William Barrett's
  condominium from its fair market value of $36,000 to $24,000 to reflect a
  deduction for "intangible assets" worth $12,000.  We reverse. 
   
       ¶  2.  Taxpayer owns a condominium in the Bridges Condominium
  Complex (Bridges), a group of 100 units whose owners are members of the
  Bridges Owners' Association, Inc.  The town listers entered the condominium
  in the Warren grand list for 2002 at a value of $36,000.  This value was
  based on a town-wide reappraisal, adjusted to reflect the unit's condition
  and recent sales of comparable units at the Bridges.  Taxpayer appealed to
  the Warren Board of Listers, requesting that the listed value be reduced by
  $12,877.23 to reflect his share of the Association's intangible assets,
  which he argued should not be subject to taxation as real property.  The
  Board denied the appeal.  Taxpayer then appealed to the Warren Board of
  Civil Authority (BCA) on substantially the same grounds.  32 V.S.A. § 4404. 
  The BCA denied taxpayer's appeal, finding that the listers properly relied
  on comparable sales in establishing an estimated fair market value for his
  property.  Taxpayer then appealed to the state appraiser pursuant to 32
  V.S.A. § 4461(a).  The state appraiser conducted a de novo proceeding to
  determine the correct value of the property.  32 V.S.A. § 4467. 

       ¶  3.  The state appraiser lowered the listed value from the
  property's fair market value of $36,000 to an "assessment value" of
  $24,000.  The appraiser's decision to list taxpayer's condominium unit at
  less than fair market value was based on a finding that ownership of the
  property included an "intangible asset of $12,000 for the subject
  property."  The appraiser concluded that this amount represented the value
  of taxpayer's .88% interest in the assets of the Association, which had a
  total value of approximately $1,446,880 as of September 30, 2001, including
  over $1,000,000 in cash. 
   
       ¶  4.  The Town of Warren contends that the state appraiser erred in
  setting the "assessment value" of taxpayer's property substantially lower
  than its fair market value to reflect a deduction for taxpayer's equity in
  the Association.  Taxpayer argues that his equity in the Association is an
  intangible asset and therefore not subject to property tax, though he
  concedes that it contributes to the fair market value of his property.  We
  reverse because the Town has met its burden of production, while taxpayer
  has failed to met his burden of persuasion.  The Town complied with the
  plain language of 32 V.S.A. § 3481 by listing the value of taxpayer's
  property at its fair market value.  Taxpayer provided no evidence that the
  valuation was arbitrary or unlawful, and his proposed valuation method has
  no legal support.  The statute does not recognize adjusting the fair market
  value by the amount of a taxpayer's interest in a condominium owners
  association.  The state appraiser's use of a non-statutory deduction from
  fair market value violates the statute's plain language.  We therefore
  reverse. 

       ¶  5.  This Court reviews decisions by the state appraiser to ensure
  that they are supported by findings rationally drawn from the evidence and
  are based on a correct interpretation of the law. Allen v. Town of West
  Windsor, 2004 VT 51, ¶ 4, 177 Vt. 1, 852 A.2d 627.  We will not disturb a
  fair market value determination unless an error of law exists.  Kachadorian
  v. Town of Woodstock, 149 Vt. 446, 448-49,