Opinion ID: 4553950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearing Officer’s Findings

Text: ¶ 20. We further conclude that the hearing officer’s appraisal was rationally derived from the findings and evidence. Barrett, 2005 VT 107, ¶ 5. The hearing officer’s findings were based largely on the market analysis report presented by the Town, which valued taxpayer’s property at $510,000. This appraisal was based on an analysis of nine recent sales of comparable QLLA properties, four of which took place in 2015 and five of which took place in 2017 within six months of taxpayer’s purchase of his property. The sites, zoning, design, heating and cooling, functionality, roofs, parking, and amenities of the comparable properties were substantially similar to taxpayer’s property. Other than one property that sold for $412,900, which the hearing officer eliminated as an outlier with respect to its “Gross Adjustment Ratio,” the 2017 sale prices ranged from $499,000 to $540,000. The adjusted prices of the properties ranged from $501,400 to $515,000, with a median value estimate of $509,900.2 The hearing officer found that the 2 At oral argument, taxpayer noted that taxpayer’s property was not factored into the hearing officer’s calculation of fair market value as one of the comparable sales. The Town’s attorney conceded that the sale should have been included in the comparable sales analysis and estimated that doing so would have reduced the appraisal value by approximately $3000. Because taxpayer did not raise this argument below, however, we do not view this as a basis to disturb the hearing officer’s decision. See TD Banknorth, N.A. v. Dep’t of Taxes, 2008 VT 120, ¶ 33, 185 Vt. 45, 967 A.2d 1148 (explaining that this Court “will not address arguments raised for the first time at oral argument”). 9 comparable properties were “very comparable” to taxpayer’s properties and that their sale prices more accurately reflected fair market value than the price taxpayer paid in 2017. ¶ 21. These findings are rationally derived from the evidence. Barrett, 2005 VT 107, ¶ 5. The Town’s report was comprehensive and contained a large number of recent sales of very similar properties in the same market as taxpayer’s property. Taxpayer did not object to the Town’s market analysis report or challenge the comparability of the sales or the adjustments that the appraiser made to those sales to derive a value for his property.3 Under these circumstances, the hearing officer did not abuse his discretion by affording greater weight to this independent market data than the sale price of taxpayer’s property in determining fair market value. See Jackson Gore Inn v. Town of Ludlow, 2020 VT 11, ¶ 44, __ Vt. __, 228 A.3d 643 (“Although the hearing officer is required to consider all the evidence, whether it be expert or lay, in determining fair market value, the weight to be accorded such evidence lies with the hearing officer.”). The hearing officer’s choice of methodology is supported by the evidence and findings and is not contrary to law. See Great Bay Hydro Corp., 2007 VT 10, ¶ 6 (“[W]e will not second-guess the state appraiser’s choice of methodology if supported by the evidence and findings, and sound in law.”). ¶ 22. We emphasize that our decision in no way alters the well-settled rule that the contemporaneous bona fide sale price of a subject property is strong, presumptive evidence of the property’s fair market value. Royal Parke, 145 Vt. at 378-79, 488 A.2d at 768. Every other kind of evidence, including evidence of comparable sales, purports to establish indirectly what the bona 3 On appeal taxpayer argues that the Town’s market analysis was inherently less reliable evidence than the sale price because it involved subjective decisions regarding fair market value. To the extent that this argument is a restatement of the position that the bona fide sales prices conclusively established the market value for property tax purposes, we have rejected that argument above. If taxpayer is challenging the weight of the comparable sales evidence, taxpayer failed to raise any specific objections to the comparable sales or the report in general below and therefore has failed to preserve this argument for review. Zlotoff Found., Inc. v. Town of South. Hero, 2020 VT 25, ¶ 33, __ Vt. __, __ A.3d __ (explaining that party must raise issue with specificity and clarity below to preserve issue for appeal). 10 fide sale price establishes directly: “the price that the property will bring in the market when offered for sale and purchased by another.” 32 V.S.A. § 3481(1)(A). But because the Legislature has directed that the sale price “is not solely determinative,” id., and given the strength of the Town’s alternative evidence of comparable sales and the absence of any challenges to those comparable sales, we conclude that the hearing officer did not err by relying on the comparable sale evidence in concluding that the sale price did not accurately reflect fair market value. Affirmed. FOR THE COURT: