Title: M.T. Associates v. Town of Randolph

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

M.T. Associates v. Town of Randolph (2004-259); 179 Vt. 81; 889 A.2d 740

2005 VT 112

[Filed 07-Oct-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 112

                                No. 2004-259


  M.T. Associates	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Orange Superior Court


  Town of Randolph	                         April Term, 2005	


  John P. Meaker, J.

  Allan R. Keyes of Ryan, Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Richard I. Burstein of Law Offices of Richard I. Burstein, Randolph, for
    Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned 

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.  The Town of Randolph appeals from a superior
  court decision which found it had violated the state and federal
  constitution by selectively reassessing taxpayer M.T. Associates' property. 
  The superior court concluded that the Town completed an unconstitutional
  partial reappraisal and, consequently, reset the value of taxpayer's
  property at its assessed value for the previous year.  We conclude that no
  unconstitutional reappraisal occurred, and that the Town's decision to
  correct an error by reappraising only mini-marts was within its power. 
  Therefore, we reverse the superior court and affirm the assessed value of
  $496,000 as set by the listers.
   
       ¶  2.  In 1998, taxpayer purchased property in Randolph and, in
  2000, tore down the existing building and constructed a new convenience
  store with gasoline pumps, commonly called a mini-mart.  The listers
  reassessed the property at $411,300 in light of the new construction. 
  Taxpayer grieved the 2000 assessment on the grounds that the value was
  higher than that of other mini-marts in town.  The Town reviewed the values
  of other mini-marts, observed that it appeared that all mini-marts were
  assessed below fair market value, and concluded that taxpayer's property
  was set disproportionately higher than comparable mini-marts. 
  Consequently, for 2000 the Town temporarily lowered the assessed value of
  taxpayer's property to $336,300.  In a note attached to the grievance
  decision, the lister stated: "[T]his is a one-year adjustment.  We will be
  looking at all minimart/gas station type properties in Randolph again next
  year."  

       ¶  3.  In 2001, the listers reviewed the assessments of all five
  mini-marts in the Town and found that they were assessed at between
  fifty-three percent and seventy percent of fair market value.  To correct
  what they observed as an underassessment of all these properties, the
  listers raised all the values.  Taxpayer's assessed value increased to
  $560,000.  Taxpayer and three other mini-mart owners either grieved their
  assessments or presented additional information.  Listers then lowered all
  four values, which reduced the assessed value of taxpayer's property to
  $496,000.
   
       ¶  4.  Of the five reappraised mini-marts, only taxpayer appealed
  the reassessed value to the Board of Civil Authority.  When that proved
  unsuccessful, taxpayer filed an appeal in superior court.  Taxpayer did not
  contest the Town's determination of the fair market value of its property,
  nor did it claim that the Town's actions violated state law other than the
  state constitution.  At trial, the parties agreed on a statement of facts,
  and each submitted testimony from an assessor.  The parties agreed that
  Randolph last reappraised its property in 1994, and in 2001, at the time of
  the appeal, overall property values in the Town were at 104.36% of fair
  market value and commercial properties were at 106.12%.  The Town concedes
  that it is not conducting a "rolling reappraisal"-that is, it is not
  intentionally reappraising a class of property each year to move closer to
  uniform assessment at fair market value.  It has not looked comprehensively
  at the values of the 156 commercial properties in the Town.  It has not
  reassessed any group of properties other than mini-marts.  No townwide
  reappraisal is scheduled.  Generally, the listers reassess a property at
  fair market value if "there was a new construction or a fire or a building
  addition to any real property of any category." 

       ¶  5.  The trial court issued an oral order, concluding that the
  Town's reappraisal of only mini-marts was unconstitutional and consequently
  that the listed value of taxpayer's property should be reset to the
  previous year's value.  In its written reconsideration decision, the court
  explained that where the Town reappraised only 3.2% of the commercial
  properties within the Town, was not selectively reappraising in the context
  of a "rolling reappraisal," and did not intend to reappraise other
  commercial properties, the reappraisal scheme violated both Chapter I,
  Article 9 of the Vermont Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of
  the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution "in bearing
  unequally on properties within the same class." 

       ¶  6.  We will reverse a trial court's factual findings only if they
  are clearly erroneous.  Williams v. Town of Lyndon, 2005 VT 27, ¶ 10, 16
  Vt. L. W. 89,