2021-0289, Appeal of Eleonora Porobic

the mountains, as well as a “full update” of property values in the Town by its an addition to the house and the clearing of trees, which expanded a view of the property was assessed at $206,000. In 2 018, following the construction of single - family home located on 0.88 acres of land owned by Porobic. In 2017, This case involves a challenge to the Town’s 2018 tax assessment of a

Bartlett. We affirm. her only a partial abatement of taxes as sessed by the respondent, the Town of decision of the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) granting HANTZ MARCONI, J. The petitioner, Eleonora Porobic, appeals a

and Christopher T. Hilson on the brief), for the respondent, Town of Bartlett. Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, PLLC, of Exeter (Brendan A. O’Donnell

brief), for the petitioner, Eleonora Porobic. Cooper Cargill Chant, P.A., of North Conway (Randall F. Cooper on the

(New Hampshire B oard of Tax and Land Appeals) APPEAL OF ELEONORA P OROBIC

No. 2021 - 0289 Board of Tax and Land Appeals

page is: https://www.courts.nh.gov/our - courts/supreme - court a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court’s home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 to press. Errors may be reported by email at the following address: editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concor d, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as 2

value of the view in tax year p. 2 2018 was $90,000 (instead of the $153,000 shown analysis and the testimony at the hearing,” and found that “the contributory in the Avitar manual, the Hayes Appraisal . . . , the Town’s comparable sales evidence presented, including the photographs and oth er detailed information view, the BTLA used “its judgment and experience, . . . weigh[ed] all of the Recognizing the subjective nature of determining the contributory value of a understated the property’s mar ket value, the Town’s assessment overstated it. Nonetheless, the BTLA determined that, although the Hayes Appraisal

affect market value.” the Town’s assessor, such as ‘width, depth, distance and subject matter[,]’ can best,” and that “[t]here ca n be little doubt that [the] view attributes noted by lump sum conclusion about the contributory value of a view is implausible, at a view when compared to one without a view.” The BTLA found that “a fixed pla ce a contributory value of more than $ p. 2 25,000 to $30,000 for a property with not credible “insofar as she contended property buyers in the Town would not disproportionality.” Further, the BTLA found that Stone - Hayes’ testimony was Hayes’ $270,000 value conclusion as the basis for a finding of “[t]his calculation, in and of itself, casts some doubt on the validity of Ms. that was lower than it had been in the prior tax year. The BTLA observed that Appraisal would, after deducting that amount, yield an assessment on the land challenge the assessment o f the building and improvements, the Hayes respect to the Hayes Appraisal, the BTLA noted that, because Porobic did not The BTLA found neither party’s valuation entirely persuasive. With

abatement should be denied. Porobic ’s assessment was proportional, and, therefore, her request for an range — once adjusted using the agreed - upon equalization ratio of 89.1% — $499,300. The Town argued that, because its assessment was within this suggesting a fair market value for the property of between $4 p. 2 25,700 and supervisor with Avitar, the Town submitt ed a comparable sales analysis expanded view. Through David Woodward, a certified property assessor assessment, arguing that the Hayes Appraisal understated the value of the abatement based on that valuation. The Town, however, defended its value of $270,000 (Hayes Appraisal), and argued that she was entitled to an Stone - Hayes, a certified general appraiser, valuing the property at a fair market mountains. Porobic submitted an appraisal of the property prepared by Nanci the land had increased by $153,000 as a result of the expanded view of the at $260,900). Specifically, she objected to the Town’s position that the value of (valued at $147,500); rather, she challenged the assessment of the land (valued not challenge the Town’s 2018 a ssessment of the building and improvements In April 2021, the BTLA held a hearing. During the hearing, Porobic did

she appealed to the BTLA. See RSA 76:16 - a (Supp. p. 2 2021). was assessed at $408,400. After the Town denied Porobic’s abatement request, new assessing contractor, Avitar Associates of New England, Inc., the property p. 3 3

and other valuation evidence in determining the property’s fair market value. evidence. See RSA 76:16 - a, IV. It was free to consider the Town’s assessment First, we note that the BTLA is not bound by the technical rules of

determining the fair market value of the property. unreliable that it was unjust and unreasonable for the BTLA to consider it in Avitar’s assessment and methodology, contending that this evidence is so testimony of its expert, Woodward. She advances numerous challenges to assessment and comparable sales analysis prepared by Avitar, as well as the Porobic argues that the BTLA erred when it considered the Town’s

We now re turn to the case before us.

Delta v. Town of Han over, 115 N.H. 26, 27 - 28 (1975). request for abatement, RSA 76:16 - a, V controls. Dartmouth Corp. of Alpha of law.” RSA 76:16 - a, V. Because this is an appeal from a BTLA decision on a fact by the [BTLA] shall be final. A ny such appeal shall be limited to questions V specifically provides that “[f]or the purposes of such appeal, the findings of However, in appeals from the BTLA — regarding tax abatement — RSA 76:16 - a, properly before it shall be deemed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable.” Id. instructs, in part, that “a ll findings of the [BTLA] upon all q uestions of fact RSA 541:1 p. 3 3 (2021). The burden of proof, as prescribed by RSA 541:13, decision bears the burden to show that it is “clearly unreasonable or unlawful.” Under RSA chapter 541, t he party seeking to set aside the BTLA’s

appeal pursuant to RSA 71 - B:12.”). also RSA 76:16 - a, V (“Either party aggrieved by the decision of the [BTLA] may accordance with the provisions of RSA [chapter] 541.” RSA 7 1 - B:12 (2012); see as here, a party appeals a decision of the BTLA, it may be appealed “only in the amount of deference to be accorded the decision under review.” Id. Where, appellate function.” Magee v. Cooper, 174 N.H. 647, 650 (2021). “It sets forth of review. As we have observed, “[a] standard of review lies at the heart of the Before consider ing the case before us, we briefly re examine our standard

value to $ p. 3 3 p. 4 45,400. This appeal followed. Porobic’s request for an abatement, and reduced the property’s 2018 assessed of Windham, 174 N.H. 569, 573 (2021). Accordingly, the BTLA granted more than her proportional share of taxes. See Shaw’s Supermarkets v. Town general level of assessment in t he Town, and that, as such, she was paying property was assessed at a higher percentage of fair market value than the concluded that Porobic had carried her burden to demonstrate that the on the assessment - record card).” (Footnote omitted.) Consequently, the BTLA 4

same regardless of how it is expressed. easily be converted to fair market value simply by applying that ratio. The valuation finding is the the equalization ratio was 89.1%; accordingly, a finding expressed in terms of assessed value can terms of assessed value and not fair market value, we are not persuaded. The parties agreed that To the extent Porobic argues that the BTLA erred because it expressed its valuation finding in 1

specialized knowledge in evaluating the evidence before it.” Appeal of City of countenanced abilit y to utilize its experience, technical competence and conflicting evidence submitted, the [BTLA] merely employs its statutorily correspond to either party’s evidence, but are within the parameters of the findings”). Indeed, “[i]n arriving at findings of fact that do not exactly the board did not give proper consideration to all the evidence when making its this court would overturn the BTLA’s decision “only if the record reveals that Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H., 1 59 N.H. p. 4 479, 484 (1984) (explaining that, in that case, and was not required to believe even uncontroverted ev idence. See Appeal of portions of the evidence as it found proper, including that of expert witnesses, issue of fact, and, as the trier of fact, the BTLA was free to accept or reject such This it was entitled to do. The deter mination of fair market value is an

the property’s assessed value should have been $3 p. 4 45,400. 1 $90,000 — not $153,000 as the Town had maintained — and that, therefore, hearing,” the BTLA determined that the contributory value of the view was taxpayer, the Town’s comparable sales analysis and the testimon y at the information in the Avitar manual, the Hayes Appraisal presented by the judgment and experience, including the photographs and other detailed accurately stated the p roperty’s fair market value. Instead, “[u] sing its determined that neither the Hayes Appraisal nor the Town’s assessment before it, including both parties’ comparable sales analyses, the BTLA the Town’s methodology, and, after expressly considering all of the evidence Here, the record reflects that the BTLA weighed Porobic’s challenges to

to be given evidence.” Id. testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight the [fact - finder’s] judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the methodology concern the weight to be accorded that evidence and “we defer to we explained in LLK Trust, challenges alleging flaws in the Town’s assessment methodology, is the linchpin in establishing entitlement to an abatement). As Wolfeboro, 159 N.H. 73 p. 4 4, 739 (2010) (ho lding that disproportionality, and not pertinent issue in an abatement proceeding. See, e.g., LLK Trust v. Town of assessment methodology is flawed, it is well - established that that is not the Second, even if we were to assume that Porobic is correct that the Town’s

evidence in tax abatement cases). 11, 13 (19 p. 5 59) (holding that valuation of property by tax assessors is competent factors to property value should be considered”); Snow v. Sanbornton, 102 N.H. See Paras v. Portsmouth, 115 N.H. 63, 67 - 68 (1975) (holding that “all relevant 5

concurred. M AC DONALD, C.J., and HICKS, BASSETT, and DONOVAN, JJ.,

or the result of legal error. Accordingly, we affirm its decision. failed to demonstrate that the BTLA’s decision is unsupported by the evidence decision. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Porobic has these similar properties provided a basis for the BTLA’s factual findings and its experts based their opinions. Thus, the information and values ascribed to value, it had before it th e raw data on comparable properties on which the properties. While the BTLA did not credit the experts’ ultimate opinions of parties’ experts, which, in turn, contain information from several comparable deci sion only for legal error. Here, the record contains the reports of both factual findings if there is any evidence to support them and we will review its question of law. Id. at 496. Accordingly, we will not overturn the BTLA’s Board’s decision. Such a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presents a supra, Porobic also asserts that there is insufficient evidence t o support the to her challenge to the Board’s weighing of the evidence, which we addressed evidence, as opposed to its weight, is dealt with as a matter of law). In addition Chevrolet - Buick, Inc., 118 N.H. 493, 496 - 97 (1978) (the question of sufficient disturbed unless clearly made “without evidence.” See Kierstead v. Be tley “limited to questions of law”), but rather that such findings will not be are unreviewable, see RSA 76:16 - a, V (appeals from decision of the BTLA are articulated in RSA 76:16 - a, V does not mean that the Board’s factual findings and limit our review to questions of law. RSA 76:16 - a, V. T he standard In reviewing the BTLA’s decision, we accept its factual findings as final

in questions of taxation or of real estate valuation and appraisal or of both”). 71 - B:1 (requiring BTLA to be composed of members “learned and experienced technical competence, and specialized knowledge” in evaluating evidence); RSA VI (2021) (providing that an administrative a gency may utilize its “experience, Nashua, 138 N.H. 261, 26 p. 5 5 (1994) (quotation omitted); see also RSA 541 - A:33,