Title: Breault v. Town of Jericho

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. 88-172


Albert & Janet Breault                       Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal From
     v.                                      Property Valuation &
                                             Review Division
Town of Jericho

                                             February Term, 1989

Wayne W. Potter, Ch.

Kolvoord, Overton & Wilson, Essex Junction, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   The Town of Jericho appeals from a decision of the State
Board of Appraisers (Board) reducing the listed value of taxpayers'
residence in Jericho because of "economic obsolescence."  We affirm.
     Taxpayers' property is located on one acre of land on a paved road.
The Town listers had appraised the land at $27,049 and the house at $70,250.
Upon the taxpayers' appeal to the board of civil authority (BCA), the value
of the improvements was increased, bringing the total valuation to $98,700.
Taxpayers appealed to the Board, which at first found an even higher total
valuation than the BCA, but arrived at a final total listed value of $92,900
after reducing its own initial figure by thirteen percent for physical
depreciation and eight percent for "economic obsolescence," (FN1) and then
reducing the product by an additional ten percent, which it found to be the
Town equalization ratio.
     The Town does not contest the  physical depreciation figure or the
equalization ratio.  The only issue on appeal is the Town's objection to the
reduction for "economic obsolescence."  This term refers to loss from the
upper limit of value due to "factors external to the property."  Inter-
national Ass'n of Assessing Officers, Property Assessment Valuation 171
(1977).  The Vermont State Appraisal Manual prepared by the Vermont
Department of Taxes defines it as "[a]ny outside influence that would
adversely affect the value of the subject property,"  such as an "adjacent
gas station, shop or any undesirable type of use."  Division of Property
Valuation and Review, Agency of Administration, Vermont State Appraisal
Manual GI-10 (1980).
     The reduction for economic obsolescence was based on taxpayers'
testimony that their well suffers from salt contamination from the nearby
Town salt shed and that the Town landfill is visible from their property.
The representative of the Town testified that no property in the Town was
adjusted for economic obsolescence because it is a "clean town."  The Board
found that  "the proximity of the subject to both the Town landfill and the
Town salt shed constitutes an impairment in the desirability of the Breault
house because of its location.  Therefore, in the opinion of the Board, this
situation warrants the application of a locational obsolescence factor to
the subject."  The Board went on to note that it had no evidence of the
effect of this factor on the sale price of properties with similar negative
environmental influences.  It concluded, however, that an 8% factor was
appropriate.
     The Town argues first that the finding that the landfill is visible
from taxpayers' property is not supported by the evidence.  The taxpayers
testified that it was visible before the Board, and there was no contrary
evidence.  Where warranted by the evidence, the Board's finding must stand.
Sondergeld v. Town of Hubbardton, 150 Vt. 565, 571,