Laurie A. Ortolano Trust v. City of Nashua
Docket Nos.: 29472-18PT/29699-19PT
Page 11 of 18
on the probative market value evidence presented by the parties. Whether or not the City acted
in an arbitrary manner or in bad faith, as the Taxpayer contends, such contentions are not
sufficient to satisfy the Taxpayer’s burden of proving the Property was disproportionally
assessed. [See Porter v. Sanbornton, 150 N.H. 363, 371 (2003); cf. 2018 Request No. 1 and
2019 Request No. 1.] For these reasons, the board has limited its findings directly to the issue of
proportionality.?
For all of these reasons, the board finds the Taxpayer met its burden of proving the
assessments were disproportional in tax years 2018 and 2019. The appeals are therefore granted.
If the taxes have been paid, the amount paid on the value in excess of $592,500 for tax
year 2018 and $577,200 for tax year 2019 shall be refunded with interest at six percent per
annum from date paid to refund date. RSA 76:17-a. Until the City undergoes a general
reassessment or in good faith reappraises the property pursuant to RSA 75:8, the City shall use
the ordered assessment for subsequent years. RSA 76:17-c, | and II.
Any party seeking a rehearing, reconsideration or clarification of this Decision must file a
motion (collectively “rehearing motion”) within thirty (30) days of the clerk’s date below, not
the date this decision is received. RSA 541:3; Tax 201.37(a). The rehearing motion must state
with specificity all of the reasons supporting the request. RSA 541:4; Tax 201.37(b). A
rehearing motion is granted only if the moving party establishes: 1) the Decision needs
clarification; or 2) based on the evidence and arguments submitted to the board, the board’s
decision was erroneous in fact or in law. Thus, new evidence and new arguments are only
3 The voluminous record includes an accusation of “potential perjury” made on the Taxpayer’s behalf by its attorney
in the 2018 appeal after the close of the hearing on April 6, 2021. On April 22, 2021, he filed a “Petition to Reopen
Case or in the Alternative for a Rehearing” with the board. As discussed in the board’s May 14, 2021 Order in the
2018 appeal, the City filed an “Objection” resulting in the board’s denial of the petition for the reasons detailed in
that Order.
