Title: Harris v. Town of Waltham

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
 that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 90-328


 Martin S. and Carolyn Harris                 Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Property Valuation and
                                              Review Division

 Town of Waltham                              October Term, 1991


 Wayne W. Potter, Chair

 John B. Kassel and David W.M. Conard of Miller, Eggleston & Rosenberg,
   Ltd., Burlington, for plaintiffs-appellants

 Andrew Jackson, Middlebury, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   Taxpayers, Martin and Carolyn Harris, appeal from a
 decision of the State Board of Appraisers setting the value of their
 residence and surrounding land in the Town of Waltham for 1989 at $155,400.
 We affirm.
      The Town assessed the taxpayers' residence, outbuildings, and 130
 acres at $98,738 in 1988.  In 1989, the Town conducted a reappraisal because
 assessed values of land and buildings within the Town were substantially
 below fair market values as shown by property transfer tax returns for sales
 in towns in the immediate area.  Land values were increased in accordance
 with a new schedule, and houses were generally increased 60% in value, after
 adjusting for physical changes in particular parcels.
      Taxpayers appealed their 1989 valuation to the Board of Civil
 Authority (BCA).  Their appeal letter stated that their land was overvalued
 as a result of the treatment of a parcel they had recently conveyed.
 Apparently both the parcel that was conveyed and the land they retained was
 valued at $160 per acre.  Taxpayers' position to the BCA was that the most
 valuable portion of their land was the parcel they conveyed and the
 remainder should be valued at less than $160 per acre.  During the BCA
 hearing, the listers explained their position on this claim and also stated
 that taxpayers' land was valued comparably to other land in the town.  The
 BCA rejected the appeal stating: "Appeal denied.  Assessment for land is
 similar to assessments of surrounding land."
      After the BCA hearing, taxpayers obtained the Town appraisal cards for
 other property within the Town and determined that the BCA statement "turned
 out not to be true."  They appealed to the Vermont Board of Appraisers
 stating that the appeal was "based on grounds of comparability."  In the
 Board hearing, they attempted to show that in thirteen respects, listing
 decisions were less favorable to them than to the other landowners.  They
 reduced this to five complaints; all, except one they described as minor,
 dealt with the assessment of the land.  They presented no evidence of fair
 market value, either of their properties or the properties to which they
 compared, and did not claim that their property was listed above fair market
 value.
      Taxpayers raise two issues here:  (1) the BCA failed to state the
 reasons for its decision as required by 32 V.S.A. { 4404(c) and therefore
 the value should remain at 1988 levels; and (2) the Board's findings on the
 fair market values of taxpayers' property and the comparable properties are
 erroneous.  The Board found that taxpayers had waived the first issue they
 raised, although it also concluded that the BCA had not complied with {
 4404(c).  Taxpayers argue that the Board's decision on the violation of {
 4404(c) is correct, but its waiver decision is erroneous.  We conclude that
 the BCA did not violate { 4404(c) and accordingly do not reach the question
 of whether taxpayers waived this issue. (FN1)
      To consider the first issue, a brief history of the statutory require-
 ments, and their interpretation in this Court, is in order.  Until
 recently, { 4404(c) provided in relevant part:
         The board [of civil authority] shall, within ten days
         from the time of the  committee report, certify in
         writing its findings in the premises, and shall file
         such findings with the town clerk who shall thereupon
         record the same in the book wherein the appeal was
         recorded and forthwith notify the appellant in writing
         of the action of such board, by certified mail.  If the
         board does not carry out the requirements of this
         subsection, the grand list of the appellant for the year
         for which appeal is being made shall remain at the
         amount set before the appealed change was made by the
         listers, . . . .

 This Court decided two cases dealing with the statute's requirement that the
 BCA prepare findings.  In Punderson v. Town of Chittenden, 136 Vt. 221,