Opinion
18-P-1139
10-11-2019
Hiram M. JONES v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OF WEST BRIDGEWATER.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff appeals from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) in his favor that granted an abatement of $789.69 against his water bills. He raises two arguments on appeal. First, he contends that the board lacked jurisdiction to abate water bills he had already paid. Second, he contends that the board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
The plaintiff's first argument depends on his contention that the board abated paid water bills, rather than unpaid ones. There is no way to assess this contention on appeal because the plaintiff did not timely request findings or a report from the board. See G. L. c. 58A, § 13. See also Board of Assessors of Norwood v. Barton, 384 Mass. 699, 700 (1981). Moreover, given the absence of a transcript of the proceedings before the board, there is "no way of knowing what took place before the board." Id. See New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. v. Board of Assessors of Dartmouth, 368 Mass. 745, 749-751 (1975). Furthermore, what little record there is does not support the plaintiff's claim. When the board denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for clarification, the board stated that the abatement pertained to amounts "in excess of the amount properly owed" (emphasis added).
The plaintiff's second argument is similarly foreclosed by G. L. c. 58A, § 13. Without findings, a report, or a transcript, there is no basis upon which to assess the plaintiff's claim that the board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, for the first time in his reply brief, the plaintiff argues that the board abused its discretion in denying his emergency motion for leave to file a late request for findings and a report. "Issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before us." Henderson v. Commissioners of Barnstable County, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 455, 459 (2000). Even more fundamentally, the plaintiff did not notice an appeal from the denial of this emergency motion. We have no authority to consider a matter from which no appeal was taken. See Mass. R. A. P. 3 (a) (1), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1603 (2019).
Decision of Appellate Tax Board affirmed.