It was soooo embarrassing....

who would say anything? Yet .... it's my tax dollars.

It was your tax dollars too.

And it was a public hearing.

In a previous attempt to bring a "Motion to Dismiss," Middleborough Town Counsel Dan Murray was sharply rebuked and told to 'resolve the matter and not return.'

Hmmm.

I didn't attend law school and make no pretense, yet wouldn't you think either an attorney representing the Town or the Middleborough Assessor, Barbara Erikson would be familiar with the laws, policies and practices surrounding an issue?

Attorney Murray's reason for the "Motion to Dismiss" ? The applicant had failed to sign the form [among other things], yet all other requisite information was present.

Thirty lashes with that wet noodle!

The judge was NOT pleased!


An ATB (Appellate Tax Board) Hearing was held Monday, October 17.

It was actually a "Motion to Dismiss" brought by the Town of Middleborough's Attorney, Dan Murray.



Attorney Murray presented arguments including an affidavit prepared by/for the Town Assessor, Barbara Erikson, that indicated applicant had made a comment to a staff member more than a year prior to the Affidavit about the 'form' - which is meaningless gossip.

Who remembers a conversation/passing comment from a year earlier? Frankly, how silly!


(This is the FORM to which Ms. Erikson refers on pages 5 and 6.)

I arrived at the ATB after fighting traffic exactly at 10 AM and couldn't find my case on the schedules posted in front of the court rooms.

So had to go to the office.

The clerk checked, confirmed I was on the schedule, but she made me aware that Atty. Murray had already phoned and said he was running late. (It is incumbent on legal counsel to assure a timely arrival.)

I sat in the courtroom and listened to a Mildford Bar/Restaurant case with the property owner's attorney and the Milford town attorney, Milford Assessor, surrounded by attorneys probably because ComCast was on the schedule.

Attorney Murray finally showed up ~ 1/2 hour late.

I had stepped outside the room to sip water I had brought with me so I wouldn't cough in the dry courtroom and realized when I returned that Attorney Murray was standing and approaching the table in front of the judges.

So, now, a little disorganized, as I re-entered, the clerk who knew I had been there was coming to get me.

I took my seat behind the table and Attorney Murray began his presentation.

Attorney Murray explained to the court that the applicant had filed for an abatement in December, the notice was sent in January to complete the form.

(Now, I'm fuming because Attorney Murray doesn't indicate that there's more than a calendar year in between.)

One of the judges asked 'what form?'

Attorney Murray explained that it was attached to the affidavit [copy on the Assessors' web site, above].

The 2 judges fumble through the papers, find the form and their verbal assault begins.

The judge asks where the form came from, he's never seen this before.

Attorney Murray speculates that the Assessor, Barbara Erikson created the form.

Attorney Murray quotes Ch. 59, Section 61A [below], claims applicant failed to provide information requested.

Now the tone gets more hostile!

The judge tells Attorney Murray what Ch. 59, Section 61A means - frankly, I was so shocked, I can't relate what it means.

But it's not what Attorney Murray thought it meant and not a valid reason to deny/dismiss this case.

Not content to stop digging the hole, Attorney Murray then raises the issue that on the application for abatement with the Town and on the ATB application, the homeowner failed to provide 'an opinion of value.'

Now it's get more heated.

The judge, mighty testy! tells Attorney Murray that the homeowner's opinion is meaningless and he's never had anyone come before him and use that as an argument.

Then the judge, looking at Attorney Murray, tone really harsh, announced "I don't even want to hear from the homeowner! Case dismissed!"

Attorney Murray picked up his stuff mighty quickly and scooted right out.

I'm dallying, trying to figure out how I avoid Attorney Murray for what was really embarrassing - it was embarrassing to me because it was pretty rude though apparently justified by conspicuous legal incompetence recognized by those who have attended law school. It was embarrassing to be connected to a Town that fails to recognize such incompetence.

I turned in my seat to file some papers that I had placed on the table into my bag (which included a lengthy chronology) and the well dressed attorney in an expensive suit behind me, stood and said rather loudly "Well done!"

All I could do was laugh and comment about 'silent women.'

I NEVER SAID A WORD! What an astounding legal argument!

The judge was so aggravated, he announced that 'I need a break after that!'

So I meandered to the ladies room and he passed me, walking in a fashion that proclaimed his mood. As he passed, he commented 'sorry to make you come all this way for that.'

All I could say was 'thank you.'

Just astonishing!

I'm sure I missed the finer interpretations of the law simply because of my shock.


This is the 2nd time I have prevailed in court against the Town's Attorney and it has nothing to do with my expertise in the law.

The last time, I remained mostly silent, but I did quote the statute which is very clearly written.


It was the same statute that I had read to the Middleborough Assessor, Barbara Erikson on the telephone, to which she emphatically stated that I was wrong.




The Massachusetts General Law:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIX/Chapter59/Section61A

Section 61A. A person applying for an abatement of a tax on real estate or personal property shall, upon request, exhibit to the assessors the property to which the application for abatement relates and if required by said assessors, shall exhibit and identify such property, and further, shall, upon request, furnish under oath such written information as may be reasonably required by the board of assessors to determine the actual fair cash valuation of the property to which the application for abatement relates including, but not limited to, income and rents received, and the expenses of maintaining such property. Failure of the applicant to comply with the provisions of this section within thirty days after such request shall bar him from any statutory appeal under this chapter unless the applicant was unable to comply with such request for reasons beyond his control or unless he attempted to comply in good faith.