TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Franklin County Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors

Franklin County Realty Trust v. Board of Assessors of Greenfield

Franklin Cnty. Realty Trust v. Bd. of Assessors, 463 N.E.2d 554 (Mass. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 7, 1984
Citations
463 N.E.2d 554391 Mass. 10181984 Mass. LEXIS 1498

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The taxpayer concedes that it did not, within statutory time limits, file appeals with the Appellate Tax Board (board) from the denial, by inaction of the board of assessors (assessors), of the taxpayer’s applications for abatement of local real estate taxes. G. L. c. 59, §§ 64, 65, 65C. The taxpayer argues that because the assessors continued to consider its applications after the expiration of the appeal periods, the assessors should be estopped to deny the timeliness of the taxpayer’s appeals to the board.

Generally we have not looked with favor on contentions that public officials are estopped from relying on statutory or other rights. See Phipps Prods. Corp. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 387 Mass. 687, 693-694 (1982), and cases cited. We have not recognized estoppel as a relevant consideration when the timeliness of a taxpayer’s appeal to the board has been considered. See Corea v. Assessors of Bedford, 384 Mass. 809 (1981). *1019 We would not, in any event, recognize principles of estoppel in this case because, in failing to appeal, the taxpayer cannot fairly be said to have relied reasonably on the assessors’ continued consideration of its applications. To allow the assessors’ continued consideration of its abatement applications without those applications being deemed to be denied, the taxpayer had only to file timely written consent to the assessors’ not deciding any application for abatement within three months of the date of its filing. G. L. c. 59, § 64. The board properly allowed the assessors’ motions to dismiss the taxpayer’s applications for abatement for lack of jurisdiction.

Jack D. Curtiss for the taxpayer. Edward P. Smith for the Board of Assessors of Greenfield.

Decision of the Appellate Tea Board affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1985: 11986: 11989: 11997: 12009: 119852026peak 1985 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. O'BLENES v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Lynn492 N.E.2d 354 (Mass. 1986)
  2. Harrington v. Fall River Housing Authority538 N.E.2d 24 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989)
  3. Morton Street LLC v. Sheriff of Suffolk County453 Mass. 485 (2009)
  4. Good v. Commissioner of Revenue395 Mass. 686 (1985)
  5. Garrity v. Board of Assessors682 N.E.2d 935 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997)

Most recent

  1. Morton Street LLC v. Sheriff of Suffolk County453 Mass. 485 (2009)
  2. Garrity v. Board of Assessors682 N.E.2d 935 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997)
  3. Harrington v. Fall River Housing Authority538 N.E.2d 24 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989)
  4. O'BLENES v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Lynn492 N.E.2d 354 (Mass. 1986)
  5. Good v. Commissioner of Revenue395 Mass. 686 (1985)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Phipps Prods. Corp. v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 443 N.E.2d 115 (Mass. 1982) 63
Corea v. Bd. of Assessors, 384 Mass. 809 (1981) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list