Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. 

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2015-052

OCTOBER TERM, 2015

Allan Leavitt } APPEALED FROM:

}

}

}

Property Valuation and Review 

Division

 v. }

}

Town of Brandon } DOCKET NO. PVR 2014-20

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Taxpayer appeals from a decision of the division of property valuation and review setting 

the listed value of his real property at $502,300. We affirm.

The subject property is a 6.12-acre parcel of land with a 2.5-story residence that includes 

among its fourteen rooms five bedrooms and four bathrooms. The house contains a rental 

apartment, and there is a freestanding garage.

The Town of Brandon reduced the assessed value of the property from $490,400 to 

$472,100 as of April 1, 2013, apparently in response to taxpayer’s assertion that 280 square feet 

of the property listed as living space was actually an attached shed. Taxpayer grieved the 2013 

assessment to the town listers, and it was further reduced to $452,500. Taxpayer then appealed 

to the town board of civil authority. A three-member committee of the board inspected the 

property on July 7, 2014. Following the inspection and a hearing held over two separate days, 

the board increased the listed value of the property from $452,550 to $528,300. Later, after 

discovering data-entry errors concerning the functional depreciation for similar properties, the 

town assessor determined that the listed value should be lowered to $502,300.

Taxpayer then appealed to the state division of property valuation and review. Following 

a hearing, a property tax hearing officer reported to the director of the division his decision that 

the listed value of the property should remain at $502,300. After noting that the subject property 

was considered a unique property, the hearing officer discussed the appraisal report submitted by 

taxpayer, which set the fair market value of the property at $362,000, with a replacement cost 

approach value of $360,597. Ultimately, the hearing officer declined to consider the appraisal, 

based upon the Town’s objection, because the appraiser was not present at the hearing and thus 

could not be subjected to cross-examination concerning the appraisal. The hearing officer also 

gave little weight to a listing of another property submitted by taxpayer, stating that listings were 

not true indications of fair market value. The hearing officer also rejected taxpayer’s contention 

that impact from the condition of an adjacent road entitled him to a depreciation of twenty 

percent in the value of his property, stating that the Town had addressed this in part with its own 

recommendation of assessed value reduction. In the end, the hearing officer concluded that 
2

while taxpayer had met his initial burden of production, he had failed to meet his burden of 

persuasion as to the value of the property.

On appeal, taxpayer contends that the Town did not consider or investigate the basis of 

his appeal. He asks this Court “to accept the unbiased and professionally constructed appraisal 

of his property,” and to impose “a twenty percent (20%) reduction in property valuation until 

such time as the aforementioned road condition causing the home vibration is fixed.” In making 

these unelaborated requests, taxpayer does not cite to the record or to any legal authority. Nor 

does he raise any specific legal issues or claims of error with respect to the decision of the 

division’s hearing officer. Although we give some leeway to pro se litigants and will address, if 

possible, arguments that may not comply with Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 but that 

are nonetheless comprehensible, in this case taxpayer presents no claims of error whatsoever. As 

we have stated on numerous occasions, we will not peruse the record searching for error. See 

Jordan v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 2004 VT 27, ¶ 10, 176 Vt. 465 (stating that reviewing court “will 

not search the record for error”).

In this case, the hearing officer concluded that taxpayer failed to meet his burden of 

persuasion as to the value of the subject property after the Town submitted evidence in support 

of its assessment. See Sondergeld v. Town of Hubbardton, 150 Vt. 565, 568 (1988) (mem.)

(“Once the taxing authority has met its burden to produce evidence of initial valuation, the 

taxpayer retains the burden of persuasion as to contested issues under 32 V.S.A. § 4467.”). To 

meet his burden of proof, “taxpayer must show an arbitrary or unlawful valuation.” Id. 

Taxpayer has not done so here. At the hearing, the Town submitted several exhibits in support 

of its assessment of taxpayer’s property, including an exhibit that provided detailed information 

concerning eighteen comparable properties in the Town of Brandon, with a particular emphasis 

on four of those properties. Taxpayer fails to demonstrate how the Town’s use of comparable 

properties or its assessment of the listed value of his property is flawed. Nor does he explain 

how the court abused its discretion by not considering an appraisal in the absence of the 

appraiser who completed it. See 3 V.S.A. § 810(3) (“A party may conduct cross-examinations 

required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.”). Under these circumstances, taxpayer cannot 

prevail in his appeal.

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________________

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

_______________________________________

Beth Robinson, Associate Justice

_______________________________________

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice