After conducting a town wide revaluation of all taxable property in 2016, the town assessed the shopping mall owned by the Plaintiff at $86,549,400. Later that same year, the town learned that the property had been used as collateral for a loan in 2013 at a value of $220,000,000. Based on that information, the town reassessed the property for the 2017 tax year for $154,149,500. The Plaintiff appealed, arguing that no changes to the property or affecting the property had occurred that would legally support a reassessment under RSA 75:8.
The Court ruled that, based upon the plain language of RSA 75:8, I, some “change” to the subject property is a prerequisite to a municipality’s legal authority to adjust property values under RSA 75:8, I. The Court explained that the discovery of an extreme under-assessment of a property does not constitute a legal change under the statute. Reading RSA 75:8 as a whole and in conjunction with RSA 75:1, the Court concluded that adjustment to an assessment pursuant to RSA 75:8, I, requires an actual change in the property’s market value. Merely obtaining information about a property does not constitute a change as contemplated by RSA 75:8.
The Court also rejected the town’s argument that by not adjusting the value of the property based on the loan collateral information would be violation of the oath and attestation required by the select board under RSA 75:7 that all assessed taxes were appraised to the best their knowledge at full value. The Court concluded that the oath in RSA 75:7 that “all taxable property was appraised to the best of our knowledge and belief at its full value” must be read as certifying the accuracy of the last legally authorized appraisal or adjustment at the time it was made. RSA 75:7.