MICHAEL A. BALMUTH and JANET E. BALMUTH
v.
DAVID E. DOLCE, in his capacity as Assessor of Taxes for the Town of Portsmouth JOHN QUA and SUZANNE SCHUTTE
v.
DAVID E. DOLCE, in his capacity as Assessor of Taxes for the Town of Portsmouth WILLIAM S. ANTLE
v.
DAVID E. DOLCE, in his capacity as Assessor of Taxes for the Town of Portsmouth
Newport
County Superior Court
For
Plaintiff: Brian G. Bardorf, Esq. Mark B. Bardorf, Esq.
Michael J. Richards, Esq.
For
Defendant: Donato A. D'Andrea, Esq. Kevin P. Gavin, Esq.
DECISION
STONE,
J.
Before
this Court for trial and decision is a five-count
consolidated tax appeal from decisions of the Portsmouth Tax
Assessment Board of Review (the Board). The Plaintiffs,
homeowners Michael A. and Janet E. Balmuth, John Qua and
Suzanne Schutte, and William S. Antle (collectively,
Plaintiffs), challenge the Town of Portsmouth's (the Town
or Portsmouth) tax assessment on real properties during the
Tax Years[1] 2009 and 2010. Plaintiffs challenge the
valuations placed on their homes during those years and seek
return of the moneys overpaid, plus costs and interest
accrued. The individual Complaints have been consolidated;
and, in lieu of a non-jury trial, the parties have executed
an Agreed Statement of Facts and submitted individual
memoranda of law. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956
§ 44-5-26. For the reasoning set forth herein, judgment
shall enter for the Plaintiffs.
I
Facts
and Travel
The
following facts have been stipulated to by the parties.
Plaintiffs Michael A. Balmuth and Janet E. Balmuth, as of
December 31, 2007 and through Portsmouth's Tax Year 2010,
were the owners of a certain condominium unit designated as
Unit No. 9 in Carnegie Harbor Residence Condominium, located
at 294 Carnegie Harbor Drive, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, which
is identified as Lot 2A-9 on Portsmouth Tax Assessor's
Plat 26 (the Balmuth Property). Plaintiff William S. Antle,
as of December 31, 2007 and through Portsmouth's Tax Year
2010, was the owner of a certain condominium designated as
Unit 11 in Carnegie Harbor Residence Condominium, located at
271 Carnegie Harbor Drive, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, which is
identified as Lot 2A-11 on Portsmouth Tax Assessor's Plat
26 (the Antle Property). Plaintiffs John Qua and Suzanne
Schutte, on December 31, 2007 and through Portsmouth's
Tax Year 2010, were the owners of a certain condominium unit
designated as Unit No. 5 in the Carnegie Harbor Residence
Condominium, located at 264 Carnegie Harbor Drive,
Portsmouth, Rhode Island, which is identified as Lot 2A-5 on
Portsmouth Tax Assessor's Plat 26 (the Qua Property).
Defendant
David E. Dolce (Defendant), the Tax Assessor of the Town of
Portsmouth, conducted an updated valuation of all parcels of
real estate located in Portsmouth-the assessment included
those properties owned by Plaintiffs (collectively, the
Plaintiffs' Properties)-as of December 31, 2007, pursuant
to § 44-5-11.6. Defendant determined that the fair
market value (FMV) of each property, as of December 31, 2007,
was as follows:
|
12/31/2007 FMV
|
The Balmuth Property:
|
$4, 430, 200.00
|
The Antle Property:
|
$4, 076, 500.00
|
The Qua Property:
|
$5, 320, 800.00
|
The
parties agree that the December 31, 2007 valuations were full
and fair, and that for the Tax Year 2008 Plaintiffs were not
overassessed. [2] For the Tax Years 2009 and 2010, Defendant
did not reevaluate Plaintiffs' Properties. Instead,
Defendant carried forward the values calculated on December
31, 2007, and Plaintiffs were assessed property taxes for the
Tax Years 2009 and 2010 pursuant to the Tax Year 2008
property valuations-the December 31, 2007 fair market values.
The parties agree that had Defendant reevaluated the
Plaintiffs' Properties on December 31, 2008 and December
31, 2009, the fair market values for each year would have
been as follows:
|
12/31/2008 FMV
|
12/31/2009 FMV
|
The Balmuth Property:
|
$4, 107, 333.00
|
N/A[3]
|
The Antle Property:
|
$3, 668, 850.00
|
$3, 261, 200.00
|
The Qua Property:
|
$4, 788, 720.00
|
$4, 256, 640.00
|
Nevertheless,
Plaintiffs paid, in a timely manner, property taxes due for
the Tax Years 2009 and 2010 as follows:
|
Tax Year 2009[4]
|
Tax Year 2010[5]
|
The Balmuth Property:
|
$49, 906.20
|
N/A
|
The Antle Property:
|
$45, 921.77
|
$46, 068.53
|
The Qua Property:
|
$59, 938.81
|
$60, 130.36
|
The
assessments in the Tax Years 2009 and 2010 were a function of
the December 31, 2007 fair market values that Defendant
carried forward and the applicable tax rate for each year,
1.1265% and 1.1301%, respectively.
Believing
the property taxes paid in Tax Years 2009 and 2010 were based
on valuations that exceeded fair market value, and pursuant
to their statutory right of appeal under § 44-5-26,
Plaintiffs appealed the assessments to
Defendant.[6] Defendant denied Plaintiffs' appeals
on the grounds that the December 31, 2007 valuations were
accurate at the time and thus properly carried forward to
December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2009 for use in the Tax
Years 2009 and 2010, respectively. Plaintiffs then appealed
Defendant's decision to the Board, which concurred with
Defendant and denied Plaintiffs' appeals on the same
grounds.
Plaintiffs
appealed the Board's decision to the Superior Court
pursuant to § 44-5-26. All five matters were
consolidated and heard before this Court without the
intervention of a jury. The parties ...