BET HOME

Barrington Taxpayers Reach Tentative Settlement Agreement
With the Town to Dismiss Lawsuit Filed in June 2009
Over December 2008 Tax Assessments

On November 1st the Barrington Town Council voted to accept the terms of a proposed settlement agreement negotiated with the Steering Committee of the citizens group Barrington for Equitable Taxes (BET) and Attorney William Landry. The proposed settlement results from an action originally filed in 2009 in the Providence, Rhode Island, Superior Court which alleged that the Town performed an improper revaluation effective December 31, 2008 the result of which was a disproportionate and unfair allocation of real property taxes in violation of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Rhode Island General Laws.

The Town filed a motion to dismiss the Suit. However, on August 4, 2010, Superior Court Judge Jeffery Lanphear issued an unprecedented ruling that a group of residents do have standing to bring an action in Superior Court challenging the entire revaluation when the claims are shown to have merit. In denying the motion filed by the Town, the Court rejected the Town’s position that the claimants’ only legal recourse was to pursue administrative appeals of their individual assessments. The Court found that the taxpayers could proceed with their global challenge that the Town wide revaluation, conducted by Vision Appraisal Company, was systemically flawed and resulted in arbitrary and discriminatory results.

Objectives of the BET Steering Committee as it assisted in negotiating the proposed settlement included:

1. A new full revaluation of all ratable Barrington properties as of December 31, 2010.
2. Develop uniform standards specific to Barrington for all future revaluations and for the

Assessing Board of Review.
3. Establish a five member Taxation Advisory Committee for the purpose of assisting the

Assessor, Manager, and Town Council to create uniform standards, hire an appraisal firm,

oversee the appraisal, verify the appraisal through statistical analysis, and train and oversee

the Assessing Board of Review. The committee would be appointed by the Town Council,

with 2 members nominated by BET.
4. Insure that all outstanding 2008 and 2009 assessment appeals are heard in a fair and

equitable manner.

Now that the Town Council has approved the settlement, William Landry, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case, will begin the notification process with the plaintiff group.

Q&A update

Settlement Agreement

August 5, 2010

Court Rules in Favor of Barrington Taxpayers

In Denying the Motion to Dismiss

In an 11 page decision released on August 4, 2010, Superior Court Judge Jeffery Lanphear rejected the Town of Barrington's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by over 700 Town residents (the “BET Lawsuit”). Judge Lanphear ruled that the plaintiffs represented a legitimate class of aggrieved taxpayers and followed proper procedures in filing the suit in Superior Court before completing the administrative appeal process. A copy of the full ruling can be found below. In denying the motion filed by the Town, the Court rejected the Town’s position that the claimants’ only legal recourse was to pursue administrative appeals of their individual assessments. The Court found that the taxpayers could proceed with their global challenge that the Town wide revaluation, conducted by Vision Appraisal Company, was systemically flawed and resulted in arbitrary and discriminatory results. The Court further found that the taxpayers have legal standing to maintain the suit. Barring appeal by the Town of Barrington, the BET Lawsuit may now proceed to be heard on its merits.

Bill Landry, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case, stated, “Although the case must now still proceed to trial, the Court’s ruling confirms that municipal revaluations are not a “take it or leave it” proposition, and that systemically arbitrary approaches that produce disproportionate or discriminatory results are subject to challenge.”

It is BET’s hope that this matter will move through the court expeditiously so that the matter may be resolved without the need for continued uncertainty on the part of Barrington property owners or substantial additional expense to the Town and its taxpayers.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT

(FILED – AUGUST 4, 2010)

SCOTT ADAMS, et. al., Individually, :

Collectively, and as Representatives :

of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons :

V. P.C. No. 09-2964

MICHAEL MINARDI, in his Capacity :

as the Tax Assessor of the Town of :

Barrington, et. al. :

DECISION

LANPHEAR, J. This case is before the Court on the Town of Barrington’s (Town) motion to dismiss a complaint filed by a number of its taxpayers (Taxpayers). The Complaint questions a property tax revaluation, alleging an improper revaluation results in a disproportionate and unfair allocation of real property taxation in violation of the Rhode Island Constitution and Rhode Island’s General Laws. Town moves to dismiss the Complaint on a procedural basis, claims the Taxpayers lack standing and failed to follow the appropriate administrative appeal process set forth in G.L. 1956 § 44-5-26. For the foregoing reasons, this Court denies the motion to dismiss.

I. Facts and Travel

On a motion to dismiss, this Court’s function is to “examine the complaint to determine if the plaintiffs are entitled to relief under any conceivable set of facts.” Tucker Estates Charlestown, LLC v. Town of Charlestown, 964 A.2d 1138, 1140 (R.I. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, the following recitation of facts is derived from the pleadings.

1. The Court relies on the allegations set forth in the Taxpayers’ Fourth Amended Complaint, filed on December 23, 2009.

2 This Court recognizes that “an illegal assessment . . . has been found to exist where a different method of appraising land values was applied to a small number of properties within a county.” Capital Properties, Inc. v. State, 749 A.2d 1069, 1084 (R.I. 1999) (citing Picerne, 428 A.2d at 1077). Barrington’s allegedly disproportionate assessment process resulted in an evaluation that was “blatantly discriminatory.” (Fourth Am. Compl. 726.) Such “disproportionate taxation of real estate is illegal under Rhode Island law.” Merlino v. Tax Assessors for Town of North Providence, 114 R.I. 630, 638, 337 A.2d 796, 802 (R.I. 1975).

3 In Bessette v. Avco Financial Services, Inc., the United States District Court ruled on defendants’ motion to strike class allegations from the complaint. See 279 B.R. 442, 450 (D.R.I. 2002). However, because there had been no discovery or hearings on the class certification issue, the Court applied a 12(b)(6) standard, indicating that

It is not appropriate to require plaintiff to establish that she can maintain a class action under Rule 23 before plaintiff even attempts to do so. It would, however, be appropriate to dismiss for failure to properly allege facts sufficient to make out a class or that plaintiff could establish no facts to make out a class . . . . At this stage, the burden is not on the party seeking class certification, rather, as the non-moving party, all reasonable inferences must be construed in her favor. Id. at 450-51 (internal citation omitted).

This action arises out of a property tax assessment by the Town of Barrington, Rhode Island. In November of 2007, Town entered into a contract with Vision Appraisal Technology, Inc. (Vision) for the statistical reappraisal of taxable and exempt real property located within the corporate limits of the Town. After Vision performed this reevaluation, Taxpayers allegedly notified Town that the reappraisal was systematically flawed. The Complaint indicates that—even after the Taxpayers presented the Town with examples of the appraisal’s widespread irrational results and discriminatory treatment—Town nonetheless embraced Vision’s appraisal as the basis for its property taxation for taxes to be levied and imposed during 2009. Town allegedly ignored the facts presented to it, publicly declared that it intended to please the greatest number of constituents, and at all times acted intentionally and knowingly to “carry out and permit a known wrong against plaintiffs.” (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 730.) Allegedly, Defendants have “intentionally disregarded the illegal results of the inequitable tax assessment . . . [and] intentionally caused plaintiffs to subsidize a substantially disproportionate share of the tax burden of the town.” (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 733.)

Instead of pursuing the administrative appeal process set forth in G.L. 1956 § 44-5-26, approximately 700 of Barrington’s taxpayers filed the present Complaint in the first instance with the Superior Court on May 22, 2009. Therein they allege that—as a result of the reappraisal—Taxpayers bear a disproportionate and unfair allocation of Town’s property tax burden. Taxpayers aver that the appraisal was “invalid and unlawful and illegal” because it was based on:

flawed assumptions, formulas, methodologies and preconceived notions; inaccurate data; substantial arbitrary discrepancies in valuation as between similarly situated properties; arbitrary neighborhood classifications; arbitrary property condition classifications; unsupported shifts in valuation allocations as between land and improvements; inconsistent, discriminatory full inspection patterns; inadequate sales data and inadequate or non-existent application of trending factors; and specious alterations of established non-statistical valuations without corresponding adequate non-statistical appraisal work. (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 723.)

The Complaint maintains that the resulting tax regimen is out of compliance with the Fair Distribution Clause of Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island in that it fails to meet the requirement that all properties be assessed at a uniform percentage of their full and fair cash value. In essence, Taxpayers argue that the reassessment resulted in property tax burdens which are not fairly and equally distributed. See id.

Taxpayers seek a declaration that any taxes based on those valuations are not in conformance with applicable law. They further seek any appropriate equitable relief in order to correct the alleged discriminatory tax assessment and to protect Taxpayers from bearing a disproportionate and inequitable tax burden.

Presently, Town moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Town maintains that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the Complaint because Taxpayers have failed to comply with the administrative appeals process set out in § 44-5-26, and the Complaint does not fall within any exemption from that appeals process. The Town also asserts that Taxpayers are inadequate representatives of their entire class and, thus, lack standing to bring the present action.

II. Standard of Review

“The sole function of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the complaint.” McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217, 225 (R.I. 2005) (quoting Rhode Island Affiliate, ACLU, Inc. v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232, 1232 (R.I. 1989)) (internal quotations omitted). In determining whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this Court “examines the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint, assumes them to be true, and views them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Barrette v. Yakavonis, 966 A.2d 1231, 1234 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Palazzo v. Alves, 944 A.2d 144, 149 (R.I. 2008)). Rhode Island courts have traditionally held that “a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) should be granted only when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be proven in support of the claim.” Siena, M.D. et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, 796 A.2d 461, 463 (R.I. 2002) (citing Bruno v. Criterion Holdings, Inc., 736 A.2d 99, 99 (R.I. 1999)).

III. Analysis

Subject Matter Jurisdiction & § 44-5-26

Chapter 5 of title 44 of the Rhode Island General Laws includes a section entitled “Petition in superior court for relief from assessment.” See § 44-5-26. In pertinent part, the statute provides that

(a) Any person aggrieved . . . by any assessment of taxes against him or her . . . may . . . file an appeal in the local office of tax assessment . . . . The assessor has forty-five (45) days to review the appeal, render a decision and notify the taxpayer of the decision. The taxpayer, if still aggrieved, may appeal the decision of the tax assessor to the local tax board of review . . . . The local tax board of review shall . . . hear the appeal and render a decision . . . .

* * *

(c) Provided, that in case the person has not . . . filed an appeal first within the local tax board of review, that person shall not have the benefit of the remedy provided in this section and in §§ 44-5-27--44-5-31, unless: . . . the tax assessed is illegal in whole or in part; and that person’s remedy is limited to a review of the assessment on the real estate or to relief with respect to the illegal tax, as the case may be.

Town presently argues that Taxpayers have not properly invoked this Court’s jurisdiction because they have failed to comply with § 44-5-26 by neglecting to first file an appeal in the local office of tax assessment. The Town argues that all of Taxpayers’ allegations refer to the underlying procedures used to determine property values and therefore simply do not rise to the level of “illegality” necessary to avoid the appeals procedure set forth in the statute. As such, Town avers that Taxpayers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and should therefore be barred from bringing the instant cause of action in this Court.

“[E]xcept for cases brought in equity, the only avenue of appeal from an assessment of taxes upon a ratable estate is to file an appeal pursuant to § 44-5-26.” Nunes v. Marino, 707 A.2d 1239, 1244 (R.I. 1998). “The provision in § 44-5-26 which permits a person to file a complaint after the local tax administrator renders his or her decision does not operate to preclude a taxpayer from filing a complaint for equitable relief in the Superior Court pursuant to § 44-5-27 at a time prior to the local administrator's rendering his or her final decision. Wickes Asset Management, Inc. v. Dupuis, 679 A.2d 314, 319-20 (R.I. 1996) (citing Ferland Corp. v. Bouchard, 626 A.2d 210, 217 (R.I. 1993); Northgate Associates v. Shorey, 541 A.2d 1192, 1193 (R.I. 1988)). However, our Supreme Court indicates that “§ 44-5-27 is clear in requiring a party aggrieved by an assessment of taxes to first file an appeal with the local assessor and then either to seek equitable relief or to file an appeal pursuant to § 44-5-26.” Nunes, 707 A.2d at 1244. (Emphasis added.) Thus, regardless of whether a party invokes the Court’s equity jurisdiction or simply travels the routine path through § 44-5-26, it must first file an appeal.

The only avenue through which a party may properly come before this Court before first filing an appeal with the local assessor is set forth in § 44-5-27. Therein, the General Assembly indicates that “[a] taxpayer alleging an illegal or void tax assessment against him or her is . . . not required to file an appeal with the local assessor.” Section 44-5-27. Thus, pursuant to § 44-5-26 and § 44-5-27, a taxpayer seeking relief in the Superior Court has essentially three options: (1) institute the appeals process, follow it to its conclusion, and then appeal to the Superior Court, (2) institute the appeals process and then properly invoke the Superior Court’s equity jurisdiction, or (3) skip the appeals process and file suit in the Superior Court by properly alleging that the tax assessment is illegal or void.

Here, Taxpayers’ Complaint makes numerous allegations which seemingly invoke the equity jurisdiction of this Court. However, because “§ 44-5-27 is clear in requiring a party aggrieved by an assessment of taxes to first file an appeal with the local assessor and then either to seek equitable relief or to file an appeal pursuant to § 44-5-26,” it is evident that equity alone will not excuse Taxpayers from the statute’s requirements. Nunes, 707 A.2d at 1244. (Emphasis Added.)

Although Taxpayers pursuit of equity jurisdiction alone was insufficient to forego § 44-5-26’s appeal requirements, this Court nevertheless finds that the present Compliant has properly invoked this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. As noted, “[a] taxpayer alleging an illegal or void tax assessment against him or her is . . . not required to file an appeal with the local assessor.” Section 44-5-27. It should be noted that “taxing statutes are to be strictly construed against the taxing authority.” Van Alen v. Stein, 119 R.I. 347, 359, 376 A.2d 1383, 1389 (R.I. 1977). Specifically, “[s]ection 44-5-26 is a remedial statute and should be construed liberally to achieve effectuation of the relief it is meant to provide. Furthermore, as with all revenue statutes, any doubt about the meaning or scope of § 44-5-26 must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer and against the taxing authority.” Weybosset Hill Investments, LLC v. Rossi, 857 A.2d 231, 239 (R.I. 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Thus, if the Complaint properly alleges an illegal tax assessment, it will survive a motion to dismiss.

When performing its duty to assume all allegations as true and to examine the Complaint in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs have properly alleged an illegal tax assessment and, therefore, are not required to proceed through the appeals process set forth in § 44-5-26. According to the Complaint, the “[t]ax assessments . . . and . . . imposition of real property taxes . . . are based on . . . arbitrary discrepancies in valuation, . . . arbitrary . . . classifications, discriminatory full inspection patterns, . . . [and] substantial over-assessments and under-assessments Town-wide” (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 723.) Such “disproportionate assessments” based upon arbitrary and discriminatory evaluations “violate[] the fair-distribution clause of art. 1, sec. 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Picerne v. DiPrete, 428 A.2d 1074, 1076 (R.I. 1981). The Complaint characterizes the assessments as “disproportionate” and “discriminatory” and indicates that “properties comparable in all material respects to plaintiffs’ properties were assessed at values substantially less.” (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 726.)2

Before Town ever adopted the appraisal as a basis for the tax structure, Taxpayers allegedly “showed the systematic nature of the discriminatory treatment of taxpayers” to the Town. (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 728.) Town “nevertheless ignored the facts” and acted “intentionally, willfully, and knowingly” in a manner “reasonably calculated to carry out and permit a known wrong against plaintiffs.” Id. at ¶¶ 729-30. A knowing and discriminatory process is illegal. See Picerne, 428 A.2d at 1077 (citing CIC Newport Associates v. Stein, R.I., 403 A.2d 658, 663 (1979)) (“a knowing or intentional assessment that is made discriminatorily would be unlawful”); Capital Properties, Inc., 749 A.2d at 1084 (“when the tax authorities act out of improper or discriminatory motives, the legitimacy of the revaluation process ends”). At its core, the Complaint avers that Town “intentionally caused plaintiffs to subsidize a substantially disproportionate share of the tax burden of the Town,” hence throwing the tax regimen “out of compliance with the legal requirement of . . . the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island that property tax burdens be fairly and equally distributed.” (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 725, 733.) Such actions rise to the level of illegality necessary to avoid the statutory appeals process set forth in § 44-5-26.

Along with alleging systematic discriminatory intent on behalf of the Town, the Complaint also insists that there are “widespread under-assessments” as well as over assessments. Id. at ¶ 727. This complies with the standard annunciated by our High Court that in “disproportionate real estate taxation [cases] . . . in order for a taxpayer to get relief, he must sustain the burden of showing a systematic, intentional undervaluation of other property in the locality.” Merlino, 114 R.I. at 638, 337 A.2d at 802. This standard though, “is apposite only to the issue of whether the tax assessor has disproportionately assessed the taxpayers pursuant to an otherwise valid revaluation scheme.” Picerne, 428 A.2d at 1078. Taxpayers squarely fit themselves within this scheme by indicating that “[e]xcept as alleged above, the challenged tax assessment was an otherwise valid enactment.” (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 731.) For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, these allegations are sufficient to keep Taxpayers’ Complaint alive.

For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that Taxpayers have adequately alleged an illegal tax assessment and are therefore excused from following the appeal process laid out in § 44-5-26. As such, Town’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds is denied.

Standing

The Town also moves to dismiss on the basis that the Taxpayers lack standing – that the Taxpayers are inadequate representatives of their purported class. The Town avers that Taxpayers—as owners of allegedly over-assessed property—have interests that are diametrically opposed to the residents who possess allegedly under-assessed property. Town suggests the purported class representatives are not free from conflicts with other members of the asserted class. In essence, it asserts that Taxpayers will be conflicted because they do not adequately represent the interests of all of the Town’s taxpayers. The Complaint indicates that

Plaintiffs bring this action . . . as representatives of a class comprised of owners of real property in the Town of Barrington who will have taxes levied and imposed on their ratable property by the Town of Barrington apportioned based upon assessed valuations . . . which . . . result in their bearing a disproportionate and unfair allocation of the burden of real property taxation in the Town of Barrington . . . . (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 708.)

“The statutory scheme set forth in § 44-5-26 allows an individual taxpayer to protest his or her own assessment . . . , but the statute does not permit one taxpayer to bring, in essence, a class action challenge to the entire taxation structure of a municipality.” Cummings v. Shorey, 761 A.2d 680, 684 (R.I. 2000). Notably though, “a taxpayer suit can be maintained as a class action despite the exclusive statutory remedy for an illegal tax provided in § 44-5-26 and § 44-5-27.” Cabana v. Littler, 612 A.2d 678, 686 (R.I. 1992); See also Johnston Businessmen’s Association v. aaRussillio, 128 R.I. 257, 274 A.2d 433 (R.I. 1971) (finding it difficult to believe that the General Assembly, when enacting § 44-5-26 and § 44-5-27, meant to bar a taxpayer’s class action to challenge the assessment of taxes as illegal). Thus, under § 44-5-26, a taxpayer may challenge the tax structure as it relates to him, or a class may challenge the entire taxation structure as a whole.

Rule 23 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure governs class actions in Rhode Island. A proper class action requires a showing that

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Sup. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

There has not yet been a motion to certify a class in the present dispute. Nevertheless, Taxpayers’ Complaint alleges that one exists, and—because the current conflict is before this Court on a motion to dismiss—it is this Court’s present function to assume all allegations to be true.3

Taxpayers’ purported class consists of “owners of real property . . . bearing a disproportionate and unfair allocation of the burden of real property taxation in the Town of Barrington.” (Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 708). Stated differently, the class consists of only some of Town’s taxpayers. The Complaint alleges that the class is numerous, that it shares questions of law and fact, that the representatives’ claims are typical of those in the class, and that the representatives will fairly represent the class.” Id. at ¶ 710. Assuming the above allegations to be true, this Court is satisfied that Taxpayers have standing to represent a class of taxpayers with over-assessed property. Town’s primary contention is that Taxpayers are not adequate representatives because their interests collide with taxpayers whose property is allegedly under-assessed. These under-assessed taxpayers might suffer if the economic taxation burden is more equally balanced. Thus, Town’s argument would be persuasive if Taxpayers purported to represent all of the Town’s taxpayers. However, because this argument ignores the stated bounds of the class, it is unsound. As indicated above, the Complaint alleges that the class is comprised only of taxpayers whose property has been over-valued. This Court is thus satisfied that Taxpayers are adequate representatives of their class of taxpayers who own over-valued property. As such, the Town’s motion to dismiss based on standing is denied.

IV. Conclusion

Because their Complaint properly alleges that the tax is illegal, Taxpayers were not required to file an appeal with the tax assessor before seeking relief in the Superior Court. Moreover, the Court is satisfied that—for the purposes of a motion to dismiss—Taxpayers have adequately alleged that they are proper representatives of a portion of Town’s taxpayers. Thus, based on the foregoing, this Court denies Town of Barrington’s motion to dismiss.

URGENT - 3/15 deadline to preserve your apeal right and

March, 11 2010 BET Litigation Update

The Superior Court has provided us a new date for the hearing on the Town of Barrington’s motion to dismiss our tax assessment challenge. The new date is April 9 at 2:00 p.m. (The case had previously been scheduled for hearing on March 19 at 2:00 p.m., but that date was vacated by Judge Lanphear based on a conflict involving a judge’s conference). We very much look forward to the case coming to a head on that date.

It is also important to again underscore the importance of getting a sworn “True and Exact Statement of Account” to the Tax Assessor’s office no later than 3/15/10 if you wish to reserve your right to appeal the Town tax assessments that will appear on your 2010 bill. (Having appealed your 2009 tax bill assessments is not sufficient.) This is done on a one page form (on which a notarized signature is required) setting forth the taxpayer’s belief as to the value of his or her real estate as of 12/31/09. CLICK TO PRINT FORM . As previously indicated, failure to file this form could seriously jeopardize a taxpayer’s right to challenge the assessments the Town establishes during 2010.

William R. Landry, Esq.

Legal Filings and Responses

BET Supplemental Memorandum

Town response to BET Memorandum

BET Memorandum in Opposition to Motion 9-10-09

Town of Barrington Motion to Dismiss 7-29-09

January 4, 2010

Subject: January, 2010 BET Litigation Update

The briefing process in connection with the Town’s effort to dismiss our suit is now final, with multiple briefs having been filed by both sides. Judge Lanphear has been asked to schedule a hearing on the motion, and he will likely do so shortly. The Court returned to regular activity today after the holiday hiatus and a week of special settlement calendars in early December.

So that interested parties may better understand the issues before the Court, I am posting herewith the full series of briefs Judge Lanphear has before him for consideration in connection with the pending motion. They are as follows:

1. Defendants’ [the Town’s] Motion to Dismiss and its Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss;

2. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;

3. Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss; and

4. Plaintiffs’ Final Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

William R. Landry, Esq.

November 9, 2009

Subject: November BET Update

The Town of Barrington’s motion seeking to dismiss our case is tracking toward resolution as set forth in last month’s update. On October 30, we filed a comprehensive legal brief addressing all the issues raised by the Town in its motion. Although it is difficult to predict outcomes in legal proceedings, we believe we have presented a very solid case as to why the internal administrative appeal process – by itself - is insufficient to provide full relief from the revaluation effective 12/31/08, and why pursuit of a Court remedy invalidating the entire statistical revaluation is appropriate. The Town now has an opportunity to file a reply brief by November 17, 2009. Then the matter will be in order for the scheduling of a hearing before Judge Lamphere.

During October we also continued the interview process with prospective expert witnesses. Although the details are not suitable for public disclosure at this time in this forum, we believe we have identified some highly qualified candidates.

It is important that we re-emphasize that our Superior Court suit is not a substitute for the internal administrative appeal process within the Town. Persons aggrieved by their assessments still need to file appeals with the Assessor within 90 days of the last day their first tax bill can be paid without penalty. Information concerning this process is available on this web site. Persons still not satisfied must appeal to the next level (Board of Tax Assessment Review) within 30 days, and persons not satisfied with their Board of Tax Assessment Review decision must appeal to Superior Court within 30 days thereafter.

October 13

I am pleased to report in this update for October that the question regarding which judge will be assigned to hear the Town’s pending legal motion to dismiss the case has been resolved. Judge Lanphear has been assigned the case. Further, we have a schedule in place that provides for our brief to be filed at the end of this month and the Town’s reply brief by November 16. The Judge will then schedule a hearing on the motion.

In the meantime we have made progress interviewing prospective expert witnesses for the trial stage of the litigation. The details are not suitable for public disclosure at this point, but we expect that decisions will be made in this regard following the Court’s ruling on the pending motion to dismiss.

William R. Landry, Esq.

Sept 11

The activity in connection with the lawsuit continues to focus primarily on finalizing our brief in response to the Town’s motion to dismiss our case on legal grounds. The main issue of focus involves the reasons why our legal remedy is not limited to individual appeals of individual assessments. The key point there is that our Court challenge is to the assessment process as a whole, and is based on constitutional principles.

Based on a conflict of interest involving the Justice currently hearing motions in Providence County (she is a former partner in our firm), our case will be re-assigned to another Justice. This will impact the filing periods for our brief and any reply the Town may wish to file, but we expect the briefing process to be complete - and the motion heard and decided - by mid-October or thereabouts.

William R. Landry, Esq.

July 31 UPDATE

The Town of Barrington Finally Responds to Taxpayer Suit Over 2008 Assessments

The Town of Barrington has finally filed its response to the complaint by over 700 town property owners originally filed in Superior Court on May 22, 2009. As anticipated, the response is in the form of a motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal theories that attorneys for the plaintiffs fully expected and are prepared to address. For example, the Town is claiming that the only way to challenge a tax assessment valuation is to file appeals locally with the Tax Assessor/Tax Assessment Board of Review, etc. However, the Town’s position ignores the fact that the plaintiffs have filed constitutional and equitable claims seeking to invalidate the assessment as a whole, and have raised issues that could never be addressed in individual appeals of distinct assessments. The Town is also claiming that the plaintiffs have not suffered any true “harm” yet since the tax bills have not yet formally been issued. This argument will obviously become moot very shortly. Also, the Town’s emphatic rejection of the challenge to the Vision Appraisal work product rendered it inevitable that the tax bills would reflect that work product. A legal brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss will be filed by attorneys for the plaintiff, and a hearing on the motion will likely take place in late September. The plaintiffs are confident that they will prevail in defeating the Town motion.

July 9 UPDATE

Our Second Amended Complaint was filed in Providence Superior Court on June 22, 2009. The amendments we have filed to the original Complaint (filed on May 22, 2009) have mostly involved additions (or other changes) to the list of plaintiffs in whose name(s) the suit is proceeding. At this point the plaintiff count is over 700.

. The Town of Barrington’s deadline for responding formally to the suit is July 10, 2009. The following several weeks and months will feature pre-trial discovery efforts by the parties, whereby documents and sworn disclosures (in writing and/or by deposition testimony) are requested and exchanged. Depending upon the nature of the responsive pleading filed by the Town by July 10, there may be a need for legal briefs on preliminary issues that test one or more of the claims asserted in our Complaint.

. We are well underway with the search/interview process with respect to prospective consultants and prospective expert witnesses, but it will likely be several weeks before substantive decisions are made in this regard.

June 9 UPDATE

OVER 600 HAVE JOINED THE SUIT. YOUR PARTICIPATION MATTERS!

1. See how to join the suit below. Download the suit

2. To see the 2009 tax assessments based on the mil rate of $16.10 established at the town financial meeting in May, download this file. This file shows every property's old assessment, new assessment, and old and new tax calculations.

3. As of May 28, according to the Town Manager, you may appeal your individual assessment. To do so, download this form and ignore the incorrect date information. Also, if your assessment increased over last years, disregard incorrect statements have been made that you must have filed a "true accounting" in order to appeal.

URGENT - ACTION NEEDED

On April 23, the Town Council voted to accept the flawed Vision Appraisal revaluation instead of requesting a one-year delay of revaluation in order to correct the numerous and systemic problems that individual appeals will not (see below). BET worked day and night since the initial assessment notices were received in February to prevent this. The only option left is for BET members was to proceed with a suit against the Town of Barrington, to correct the unfair taxation that will result. This suit is the only way to challenge certain aspects of the statistical revaluation because “individual” appeals will only address cases of over-assessed leaving numerous under-assessment errors which will result in significant over-taxation of the majority of taxpayers which is a violation of state law. For more on the suit see the Suit Q&A page.

IMPORTANT - Please support the suit by:

1. Adding your name to the suit. There is no risk of liability or financial responsibility in supporting the suit in this manner. To do so, download the Authorization form, sign, and mail to BET at PO Box 25 Barrington, RI 02806.

2. Helping fund the suit with a contribution to BET. All unused funds will be returned pro rata. Send your check to BET PO Box 25 Barrington, RI 02806.

Of course, if you have questions and would like a BET representative to call you, please email BET.

Mission

BET is a volunteer organization comprised of concerned taxpayers who are working to achieve an equitable and fair 2009 revaluation. We support what is legally mandated by Rhode Island state law: accurate, fair-market value assessments and equitable taxation.

IMPORTANT: Unfortunately, some have tried to frame the controversy over the recent revaluation as a battle between groups based on income or wealth. It is not. It is an issue of right vs. wrong. It is right to pay taxes based on accurate assessments. It is wrong to tax anyone too much or too little. Only an accurate revaluation will allow everyone to pay a fair share of the tax burden.

How to use this site

Below are descriptions of the site's resources and web pages.

BET Analysis: The 2009 Revaluation and its Impact

Many errors were made by a new firm, Vision Appraisal, resulting in unfair increases and decreases in a majority of properties. By one study of over 50 actual sales, the assessments were outside of acceptable norms in 72% of the cases! We calculate that if the Town budget increases by the allowed 4.75%, anyone whose assessment did not go down by at least 11.2 % will pay more in taxes. See the BET Analysis for details of the problems with the revaluation, what it means to you, and what options we recommended to the town's leadership. There is more information on the Stats and Data pages including a downloadable file of the entire town's properties with prior and current assessments.

BET Recommendation

Due to the flawed appraisal and highly unfair distribution of tax burden that will result, the Town Council should have requested a deferral of the statistical revaluation until next year, so that a fair, accurate revaluation could be completed. For more information see the BET Analysis

Your Assessment, Your Options, What to do

What can you do to correct your assessment? What can you do to fight the entire revaluation? click here

Studies, Statistics, and Downloads

For a list of studies, analyses, and downloads click here.

Calendar

For information on the tax and appeals cycle and special town meetings click here

What you can do to help