Vanderminden, A Family LTD Partnership v. Town of Wells
75 A.3d 598
Vt.2013Background
- Taxpayer Vanderminden, a Family Limited Partnership, owns contiguous land in Poultney and Wells with 1.49 acres total and 715 feet lake frontage; improvements are on the Poultney portion.
- Wells portion is 0.09 acres with 125 feet lake frontage, land value assessed separately by Wells but part of the same overall parcel.
- In 2011 the Wells portion was assessed at $130,200, reduced to $122,000 after grievance, based on a lake frontage schedule; no schedule or starting values were introduced by listers.
- Taxpayer presented expert testimony that Wells parcel fails state septic/setback requirements and offered Poultney lakefront sales and a Wells land value calculation assuming Poultney location.
- The state appraiser conducted a site visit; rejected parking-lot-only use and Poultney sales as not indicative; affirmed Wells value of $122,000, ruling taxpayer failed to prove overvaluation.
- Two-town contiguity issue: Vermont statutes do not straightforwardly address multi-town parcels; the court must determine fair market value for the whole parcel and apportion between towns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state appraiser adequately explained the decision and relied on proper evidence | Town's valuation unsupported; schedule not properly introduced. | Appraiser used standard valuation evidence and presumption of validity. | Appraiser’s findings inadequate; remand for proper methodology and evidence. |
| Whether the Wells portion can be treated separately or must be valued with the Poultney portion as one parcel | Wells portion should be separately valued due to location and setbacks; otherwise overstated. | Property is a single parcel for valuation; treat together for FMV. | Property must be treated as one parcel for FMV; apportionment must reflect overall FMV on remand. |
| Whether taxpayer’s evidence shows the assessment exceeds fair market value overall | Evidence indicates overassessment when value is combined across towns. | Town’s schedule and factors may justify assessment; taxpayer must show overvaluation. | Taxpayer rebutted presumption; remand to determine overall FMV with cross-town adjustment. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Barre v. Town of Orange, 152 Vt. 442 (1989) (bursting bubble presumption; presumption of validity and burden-shifting in tax appeals)
- Adams v. Town of West Haven, 147 Vt. 618 (1987) (burden on taxpayer after presumption disappears; town must justify appraisal)
- Littlefield v. Town of Brighton, 151 Vt. 600 (1989) (burden to show independent FMV evidence when presumptions shift)
- Neun v. Town of Roxbury, 150 Vt. 242 (1988) (factors for treating contiguous land as one parcel)
- Bullis v. Town of Grand Isle, 151 Vt. 503 (1989) (contiguous parcels and common ownership considerations)
- Ames v. Town of Danby, 136 Vt. 78 (1978) (relevance of other-town appraisals to FMV; credibility of evidence)
- Barnett v. Town of Wolcott, 2009 VT 32 (2009) (uniformity in valuation and proportional contribution; FMV standard)