Excessive Assessment Grievance Case Study #4 – Grievance for a Lake House Owner

Successful Reduction in Assessment by $230,000  

‍

By Warren Leisenring, Jr.

Board of Assessment Review member since 2012; Consultant grieving assessments for upstate New York property owners since 1980; Consultant for Tax My Property Fairly website since 2018

This Case Study of an actual grievance argued for a property owner pertaining to Excessive Assessment was written by Warren Leisenring, Jr. and all information revealed here was discovered during Mr. Leisenring’s consultation on behalf of his client.  We thank him and the homeowner for allowing us to share this with our readers for the purpose of giving property owners insight and tips on what to expect and how to prepare their grievances. All personal information has been removed. The content of this Case Study represents the sole views and opinions made by the writer, Warren Leisenring, Jr. Any views, opinions or conclusions made by the reader are solely those of the reader and the writer nor Tax My Property Fairly cannot be held responsible or liable for any of those views, opinions or conclusions.

Introduction / Executive Summary

I never thought the mess I outlined in my Grieving by Excessive Assessment Case Study #3 could be outdone but I was wrong. The information and issues discussed here are from my experiences and research done while grieving an assessment for a client in upstate New York. The property's assessed value went up  $335,700 from $844,300 to $1,180,000.

I represented the property owner as a part of my private consultancy business (not through Tax My Property Fairly), for his entire grievance from an informal meeting with the assessor, a Board of Assessment Review Hearing, and a Small Claims Assessment Review Hearing or SCAR Hearing. 

I went through my normal process of thoroughly researching comparable sales and/or comparable properties and presented this information to the assessor in an informal meeting.

Getting no resolution at the informal meeting, I did more research on comparable properties and scheduled an appointment for grievance before the Board of Assessment Review (BAR).

At the BAR meeting, I submitted a 2-page overview for each Board member. The BAR never looked at or asked about the comparable property spreadsheet or supporting documents. They instead dwelled on one comparable property assessment I had inquired about at the informal meeting as to why it the assessment was lowered by $426,000.00 with no proof of current and accurate data. The BAR did not ask the assessor to provide any proof of how the assessment I was grieving was achieved nor did the assessor offer any proof. NYS law requires the assessor to provide proof that the assessment is correct for any assessment that is challenged. After 10 minutes, suddenly a Board member said my time was up and ended the hearing. I was never given a chance to explain my grievance or my other comparable properties. 

In June, a month after the Hearing, I received the Notice of Determination from the BAR that my grievance was denied for inadequate proof, which had been provided but was never reviewed. 

In July, I set up a meeting to talk to the Town Supervisor, which was also attended by the town attorney, about the assessor’s and BAR’s actions. In an email after the meeting, the Supervisor told me he shared the information with the assessor, who reviewed the data and his calculations and felt that his assessment was fair, reasonable, and accurate. 

This was not acceptable so our next step was to prepare for a SCAR (Small Claims Assessment Review) hearing.

By this time, the 2023 Final Assessment Roll had been made public, so I updated my spreadsheet based on the final assessments with properties comparable to the property I was grieving. Some of the property owner’s neighbors said they believed he was being singled out because he was not grieving the property himself. The neighbors who personally grieved their properties saw reductions in their assessments. This prompted me to do more research.  

Residents whose primary residences were in the town where the assessments occurred had an average square foot living area price of $203.36. Residents whose primary residences were from another state had an average square foot living area price of $310.94, a 153% higher rate per square foot.

Was this just a coincidence? To find out I did a wider search of random properties including all styles and in normal or good condition. Properties whose owners had primary residences in the town of assessment or in the surrounding area had an average square foot living area price of $122.26. Properties whose owners had primary residences out of the State of New York had an average square foot living area price of $302.61 or 247% higher.

To me, this seemed like a clear violation of the "Welcome Stranger" or "Welcome Neighbor" law.

I "foiled" the minutes from the BAR meetings under the "Freedom of Information Act which showed why grievances were lowered out of 43 complaints over four days. 

At the SCAR Hearing in August, I provided the Hearing Officer with all the material given to the assessor and the BAR including the third spreadsheet from the Final Assessment Roll and the lists of properties where I believed there was an issue with the "Welcome Stranger or Welcome Neighbor" law. The former assessor presented his appraisal at the Hearing, which I reviewed after the meeting and found many errors.

I sent a letter to the Hearing Officer in September outlining these errors. He replied a couple of weeks later, in agreement with our case, with a decision to reduce the assessment by $230,000 to $950,000.

Although I did not receive the entire requested assessment reduction to $850,000, I now know why, as I have outlined in this case study. I hope that this will be addressed by the town and county. No property owner should have to go through or find what I did in this grievance. 

Takeaways from this Grievance

Not every case is the same but we hope this study is useful to alert homeowners to what may be encountered in some cases when challenging your assessment, and the steps to take. 

• As we have said before, not all assessors and BAR members are well-trained and fully understand the law. 
• You cannot assume that what some assessors and BAR members decide is accurate, follows the law, and is based on appropriate comparables. 
• There is little to no oversight of BARs and assessors.
• The grievance process can be so complicated that most people do not challenge their assessments. 
• Some people believe that if they challenge their assessment they will be penalized or targeted in the future. But the fact is that those whose assessments are reduced save money and everyone else needs to make up the difference.
• Towns do revaluations to even out the assessments and bring everyone up to 100% of value. This town would have done that if the assessor and Board had not lowered certain properties by hundreds of thousands and in some instances over a million dollars. Even though the assessments went up, the tax rates would have come down and property owners would not have seen much increase in the amount of taxes they would have paid
• The process the assessor and Board may have used in this case and others may have cost other property owners a lot of money to make up for it. Let's say they lowered the Town's net worth enough to raise the tax rate by $5.00 a thousand. This would cost a property owner whose property is assessed at $750,000.00, an additional $3,750.00 in property taxes each year.

Continue reading below for the full details of this grievance in Case Study #4  

The Situation

The taxpayer’s town had a revaluation done by an outside company supposedly to bring all assessments up from 86% to a 100% Equalization Rate. Many property owners were upset when they received an "impact statement" in the mail. One of those property owners was the person I represented. His property's assessed value went up by $335,700.

This is the notification:

Grievance Preparation

This grievance was done by Excessive Assessment, where the only proof required is an Adjusted Sale Price lower than that of the assessor.The substantiated proof and comparable properties are not limited to the same assessment roll as it is for Unequal Assessment. This is explained on the RP-524 form and in the Assessor's Manual under Section 1.4.1, Valuation Standards.

I began by researching comparable sales and/or comparable properties to the property I was grieving also known as the subject property. I prepared a spreadsheet as New York State and the Office of Real Property Tax Services recommended for grieving purposes in their pamphlet titled: "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home." Even though the pamphlet stated that three comparable properties were sufficient, my spreadsheet contained four. Once adjustments were made to each comparable property to make them equal to the subject property, the new Adjusted Sale Price was $917,795 for the property I was grieving. This was a full market value that was $262,205 lower than what was on the 2023 Assessment Notification sent out by the assessor. The subject property and all the comparable properties I used were lakefront properties.
‍

The RP-524 form states: The State law now requires that the assessment roll display the assessor's estimate of the full value of your property. This is very important because all full market assessments are based on recent sales of that property. If a property owner uses the full market value of comparable properties from the current assessment roll, it must be from recent sales of that property. This alone makes any full market value used from the same or an adjacent town or municipal boundary assessment roll for Excessive Assessment, a valid comparable property when adjustments have been made to make them equal as explained in the published pamphlet by New York State.

I knew that the comparable properties used for comparison purposes were valid according to New York State and the Office of Real Property Tax Services. It was now time to make an appointment with the local assessor. 

Informal Meeting with the Assessor

May 16, 2023 

I presented and explained my spreadsheet to the assessor. The assessor typed in a few numbers on his calculator and said: "they will not let me go that low." 

When grieving by Excessive Assessment, it is how the subject property compares to other properties. This is how a property owner can determine if their property is equal to other properties when all factors are adjusted to be the same. The reason the assessor gave as to "they will not let me go that low" was irrelevant because it was not based on the facts and data presented to him. It was based on a personal decision. Assessments are to be based on current and accurate data. 

Seeing this was going nowhere, I had previous knowledge of a similar property to the one I was grieving and asked why this property which was assessed at $1,243,000 was reduced to $817,000 when the complainant presented no evidence that the assessment was incorrect. The property owner provided no comparable properties or comparable sales. The only comment from the assessor was "I do not recall that property." I had all the information with me, but he would not look at it. I immediately handed him a completed RP-524 form asking for an assessment reduction to $850,000 so I could go before the local Board of Assessment Review.                             

Doing Some Additional Research

Before my appointment with the Board of Assessment Review, I did additional research on comparable properties. I kept two of the comparable properties that were used in my meeting with the assessor, added one more of my own, and the three that the assessor used to achieve the assessment on the subject property. In his comparable properties, the assessor did not show how adjustments, if any, were made to make them equal to the subject property. The comparable properties are shown in the following spreadsheet.

As can be seen from the above spreadsheet, only one of the three comparable properties from the assessor was correct – Comp #4– when the proper adjustments were made to make the properties equal. Using the new comparable properties, lowered the subject property's Adjusted Sale Price by $47,892 from Spreadsheet #1.

I prepared a packet of supporting documents and the new spreadsheet for each member of the Board of Assessment Review. The packet also contained a two-page overview that would only take about three minutes for the Board to read, so they could fully understand how the grievance was being grieved.  

Just Before the Board of Assessment Review Hearing

May 23, 2023

As I was waiting for my appointment before the Board of Assessment Review, I was approached by the assistant assessor and asked if I would be interested in trying to enter into a stipulation agreement before the hearing. I said yes and we went into her office. I handed her the RP-524 form and she looked at the requested amount. She immediately stood up and left the room. As she walked away, I could see her shaking her head in a "no" fashion" and went directly into the room where the Board of Assessment Review was meeting. She never looked at any of my proof or comparable properties. When she returned, she said we were done, and I had to go before the Board. 

About 20 minutes later, the Board called me in the room for the hearing.

Board of Assessment Review Hearing

May 23, 2023

I took the last appointment of the day because I knew it would take more than the allotted 10 minutes. Every property owner is to be allowed ample time to present their grievance. The appointment was for 7:50 p.m. but was started at 7:40 p.m.

I handed the two-page grievance overview to the Board and asked if they would read it so they could understand how it was being grieved. The first paragraph introduced my credentials. It stated I was a member of a Board of Assessment Review for the past 12 years. It did not take long for the entire hearing to "go south."

By the time the Board members got to the second paragraph, which explained what had happened in my informal meeting with the assessor, one member immediately called it hearsay and dismissed it. Then a second Board member said the third paragraph was also hearsay. A third Board member said, "I do not need to read this stuff, just give me the rest of your material." None of the Board members read past the third paragraph. 

The Board immediately discarded one of my suspected comparable properties because it was not on the same side of the lake. The comparable property was the one I questioned the assessor about in the informal meeting that "he could not recall." Apparently, this was not hearsay. I had not presented the Board with any comparable properties for my grievance at this time. They were still in the packet I had for them. My comparable spreadsheet was completely different than what I presented to the assessor at the informal meeting.

The Board continued to dwell on this one comparable property coming up with multiple reasons as to why it was not a valid comparable property. It was on the opposite side of the lake. It was on a main highway where cars virtually ran through the bedroom. The property was smaller than the one I was grieving. The property I was grieving was on a private road. I told the Board that according to New York State law, it was a valid comparable property.

The Board never looked at or asked about my comparable spreadsheet with the five additional comparable properties or any supporting documents. 

New York State law requires the assessor to provide proof that the assessment is correct for any assessment that is challenged. The Board did not ask the assessor to provide any proof on how the assessment I was grieving was achieved nor did the assessor offer any proof. 

Suddenly one Board member said my time was up and was ending the hearing. It was 7:50 pm. New York State law requires the Board to remain and hear grievances until 8:00 pm. There was no one after me. I was never given a chance to explain my grievance or my other comparable properties.‍

Notice of Determination 

June 21, 2023

I received the Notice of Determination from the Board of Assessment Review that my grievance was totally denied by the Board of Assessment Review by reason that the proof of value was inadequate. All the Board members concurred. However, this grievance was far from over. I set up a meeting to talk to the Town Supervisor.

Meeting with the Town Supervisor and Town Attorney

July 11, 2023

I prepared a detailed letter for the Supervisor explaining what I had experienced with the assessor and at the Board of Assessment Review. The Supervisor invited the Town Attorney to the meeting, which I thought was a good idea. For my witness, I invited a member of the Board of Assessment Review I serve on. 

In an open discussion, I explained what I believed had happened. The only response I received was that he would speak with the assessor. 

Email Received from the Town Supervisor

July 12, 2023

The email from the Supervisor said that he and the attorney shared the information with the assessor. The assessor reviewed the data and his calculations and feels that his $1,180,000.00 assessment is fair, reasonable, and accurate. He will not accept your request for a stipulated agreement. 

Next Step: Preparation for SCAR Hearing

By this time the 2023 Final Assessment Roll had been made public, so I made another spreadsheet based on the final assessments with eight comparable properties to the property I was grieving. Most of the comparable properties were neighbors of the subject property. (I have broken this spreadsheet into two sections, so the print is not so small). Not surprisingly, the new Adjusted Sale Price came back even lower than the first two due to the major reductions granted to some of the properties.

The first two spreadsheets were taken from the 2023 Tentative Assessment Roll. The third spreadsheet was taken from the 2023 Final Assessment Roll.

• Spreadsheet #1: Adjusted Sale Price (original asking reduction, given to the assessor): $917,795
• Spreadsheet #2: Adjusted Sale Price (after more research, given to the Board): $869,903
• Spreadsheet #3: Adjusted Sale Price (final roll after reductions): $821,826 

.

Some of the property owner’s neighbors told him they believed he was being singled out because he was not grieving the property himself. All the neighbors who personally grieved their properties saw reductions in their property tax assessments. This prompted me to do more research.  Since the property I was grieving was a colonial residence, I researched all 13 residential colonial properties on the same side of the lake.

• All properties were lakefront properties and listed in "Good" condition.
• Residents whose primary residence was in the town where the assessments occurred had an average square foot living area price of $203.36.
• Residents whose primary residence was from another state had an average square foot living area price of $310.94.  This was a 153% higher rate per square foot than those whose primary residence was in the town where the assessment occurred.

This prompted a wider search to see if this was just a coincidence.  

• I researched 32 random properties including all styles and in normal or good condition. All were lakefront properties and from the west and east sides of the lake.
• 19 properties whose owner had a primary residence in the town of assessment or in the surrounding area had an average square foot living area price of $122.26.
• 13 properties whose owner had a primary residence out of the State of New York had an average square foot living area price of $302.61 –247% higher than that for residents who lived in the surrounding area.

To me this seemed inconsistent with the "Welcome Stranger" or "Welcome Neighbor" law.  I "foiled" the minutes from the Board of Assessment Review meetings under the "Freedom of Information Act." The Board of Assessment Review heard 43 complaints over four days. Here are the stated reasons for lowering certain grievances.

• Complainant disagreed with using market values for revaluation.  Lowered $36,000.
• Complainant stated the home needs many updates.  Lowered $7,000.
• Complainant stated the home needs remodeling, updating and a new roof.  Lowered $96,000.
• Complainant believes the comparables were poor and not fair as far as square footage. Lowered $86,000.
• I overpaid for the property due to circumstances. Lowered $25,000.
• The old home was demolished in 2019. A new home was built in place of it. (no proof stated) Lowered $281,000.
• Complainant wanted a fair assessment with the neighbors.  Lowered $100,000.
• Shopping Center - only 20% of the parking lot is completed. Needs a new roof. Lowered $1,381,400.
• Comparable Sales - Excessive - Lowered $57,000.
• Comparable Sales - Lowered $225,000.
• Comparable Sales - Lowered $266,000.
• Complainant did not believe using sales in the area to determine market value was a fair practice. Lowered $315,000.
• Comparable Properties - Denied.
• Complainant said they overpaid for the home and wanted to be equitable with the neighbors. Lowered $667,000.
• Complainant said they paid too much for the property. Lowered $63,000.
• Comparable Sales - Lowered $470,000.
• Complainant said the property had been in the family for years and part of it is no longer used as a business. Lowered $280,000.
• Complainant believes the assessment is too much and wants it lowered. Lowered $233,000.
• Real Estate Agent - Comparables - Lowered $121,000.
• Real Estate Agent - Comparables - Lowered $71,000.
• Complainant stated they are only there a few months out of the year. Lowered $665,000.
• Comparable Sales - Lowered $969,700.

According to the minutes if a property owner grieved by Comparable Sales, their assessment was reduced. If a property owner grieved by Comparable Properties (which I did) they were denied. Comparable Properties and Comparable Sales are the same, but the Board apparently did not know this. I  found other grievances that were reduced by bypassing proper procedure.   NOTE: For New York State procedures on contesting a Board of Assessment Review's Decision go to this link: (See pages 4-5) Contesting Your Assessment in New York State - Tax.NY.gov. If f you don't receive the relief you requested, the next steps are Small Claims Assessment Review and a Tax Certiorari Proceeding.·  On or prior to Grievance Day, you and the assessor may stipulate to a reduced assessment of the value of your property. Volume 10 - Opinions of Counsel SBRPS No. 37 - Tax.NY.gov

·      Boards of Assessment Review are expected to ratify assessment stipulations entered into by assessors and taxpayers.  Now that you have seen what some property owners said or used to receive large reductions in their property tax assessment, I would like to show you what I presented to the Board and was denied. Here is the actual report from the minutes of the Board.

• The Complainant provided a completed RP-524 form. The complainant was represented by Warren Leisenring Jr.
• The assessor noted that the property assessment has been the same since 2018 at $460,000 for the land and $844,300 total.
• The BAR reviewed the property and the RP-524.
• BAR Decision: No change to 2023 assessment: Land: $490,000 Total: $1,180,000.
• The reason for denial stated on the RP-525 form was Proof of value inadequate. All members concurred.

This is what was missing from the minutes:  

• The two-page cover sheet explaining the grievance.
• The Board dwelling on one supposedly invalid comparable property for the entire grievance.
• A spreadsheet of six comparable properties with adjustments made to make all residences equal.
• The proof of a new Adjusted Sale Price of $857,000.00.  
• The pamphlet from New York State explaining the process on how to prove the grievance.
• Proof from the assessor’s manual (1.4.1 The Comparable Sales Approach) that all the comparables used were valid.
• A Current Comparable Sales Analysis Adjustment Formula showing how each adjustment was made.
• The section from the Board of Assessment Review manual stating "all persons involved in the complaint have a full opportunity to make statements, present testimony and produce evidence.
• The assessor offered no proof of comparable sales showing the assessment was correct. This is required by law if any assessment is challenged.

It was now time to file for Small Claims Assessment Review.

Small Claims Assessment Review

August 29, 2023

I provided the Hearing Officer with all the material given to the assessor and the Board of Assessment Review. In addition, I provided the third spreadsheet from the Final Assessment Roll and the lists of properties where I believed the "Welcome Stranger or Welcome Neighbor" law may not have been followed. 

The first thing stated was the assistant assessor who at the time of my meeting with the Board of Assessment Review, was now the assessor and the former assessor who I had at the informal meeting was only there in an advisory role. 

I explained my grievance. I provided proof that the comparable property the Board of Assessment Review said was invalid was indeed a valid comparable property. I mentioned that assessment that was reduced by $426,000.00 with no proof.

Toward the end of the Hearing, the former assessor handed me a copy of an appraisal he made. The appraisal had three comparable properties that showed Adjusted Sale Prices for the subject property at $1,102,000.00, $1,617,000.00 and $1,087,000.00. He said he did not like some of the values that the CAMA (computer-assisted mass appraisal) system had come up with in the appraisal, so he inserted his own values into the appraisal. His admission proved my statement of the CAMA system is not accurate.

I did not have time to review the former assessor's appraisal at the Hearing, so I reviewed it when I returned home and found many errors.
‍‍

Letter Sent to Hearing Officer

September 5, 2023

After reviewing the appraisal, the assessor submitted for evidence at the SCAR Hearing, I thought it best to send this letter to you even if it is not acceptable after the Hearing.

These are the inaccuracies I found in the former assessor's appraisal:

Comparable Property #1:

·      This property was on the west side of the lake. Why could he use a comparable property from the west side while mine was deemed invalid? This proved he knew the comparable property in my Board of Assessment Review hearing was valid, but he chose to say nothing.

·      He used a sale price from two years ago of $1,295,000. The current 2023 full market value on the assessment roll is $855,000.

·      The square foot living area price was incorrect. He had it listed as $479.00 per square foot. The square footage was 2,703 and the residential portion of the assessment was $166,400.00. The correct square foot living area price is $61.56.

·      The assessor listed the property as 124 years old. The correct Effective Build Date was the year 2000. The last major remodeling was in 2015.

·      The assessor made an adjustment of $10,000 on the subject property for having a 704 square foot finished basement area. According to the assessor's manual, recreational rooms are not assessable.

·      The assessor made an adjustment of $75,000 for the comparable property not having a garage. The detached garage for the subject property is in another town's assessing unit and it not assessable in his assessing unit. He should know that.

·      The assessor made an adjustment of $32,500 for the difference in the sale dates. The Effective Build Dates are only ten years apart. Not 49 years.

·      Listed the property as "Old Style" it is "Colonial."

Comparable Property #2: 

·      Much the same as Comparable Property #1.

·      Sale price was from two years ago. The current 2023 full market Value is $363,000.00 lower.

·      Square foot living price was incorrect. It was $187.55, not $594.00 as the assessor stated.

·      The Effective Build Year was 2000.

·      Garage was the same as in Comparable Property #1.

Comparable Property #3: 

·      The sale price on the appraisal was correct for 2020 at $995,000.00. However, the current 2023 assessment is $1,175,000.00.

·      The owners are from Florida. As you can see the sale amounts in Comparable Properties #1 & #2 are higher than the actual assessments. Both property owners are local. For this comparable the assessor used the sale price from 2020 because the current full market value is $180,000 higher. All current full market values should have been used in this appraisal by the assessor. This reinforces my claim of violating the Welcome Stranger or Welcome Neighbor law.

How can an accurate appraisal be made when the assessor never asked for entry or entered the residence to evaluate what was there?

‍

Phone Conversation with the Hearing Officer

September 12, 2023
‍
About a week after sending the letter to the Hearing Officer, I received a call from him stating he had received the letter. We spoke candidly for about an hour on several topics. He did not tell me his decision on the grievance but did say that he thought I would be pleased. He said it was the most he had ever reduced a million-dollar property since he had been a Hearing Officer.

Although grateful for his decision, the RP-524 Instruction Form states that assessments are to be made by current and accurate data:

Once you have established the average percentage at which other residential properties are assessed, you must apply this percentage to the value of your property. If the result is lower than your assessment, you may request that your assessment be reduced to that lower amount.

Small Claims Assessment Review Decision

September 22, 2023

I received the Hearing Officer’s decision and was pleased. Below is the actual decision.

This decision was not easy. There were dozens of factors to consider, and it clearly appears that there is some animosity between the parties, which is never good for either the Town or the Petitioner. The writer does not necessarily believe that property on either side of the lake should be assessed in a different level, although this is possible depending on general direction of the wind or some other factor.
‍
The Petitioner's representative produced many comparable properties, and many showed substantial reductions in the assessed values, but the assessment of the Petitioner's property was not reduced. The assessor really did not argue the validity of the comparable properties the Petitioner's representative produced.

It would appear obvious to the writer that the Assessor should visit the Petitioner's property and determine a fair market value and that has not been done. (Note: Assessors can come to the front door of a property and ask to enter but the property owner does not have to grant entry. They seldom grant entry. If they refuse the assessor must leave.)

Therefore, the assessment of the Petitioner's home will be reduced to $950,000.00 and that is my decision.

In Closing          

Although I did not receive the entire assessment reduction to $850,000 that I had asked for, I now know why, as I have outlined in this case study. It is my hope that this will be addressed by the town and county. I do have the option of arguing the assessment again this year if asked by the property owner. 

I will be contacting the Real Property Director for that County and discussing what happened in this grievance. I also will be discussing how I can help towns provide better training for assessors and Boards of Assessment Review in New York State. No property owner should have to go through what I did in this grievance.  

NOTE: The content of this Case Study represents the sole views and opinions made by the writer. Any views, opinions or conclusions made by the reader are solely those of the reader and the writer nor Tax My Property Fairly can not be held responsible or liable for any of those views, opinions or conclusions.

The purpose of this Website, newsletters and responses to questions is to help you to understand real property taxes and assessments in New York State and is for educational purposes only.  This Website is NOT providing legal advice, nor is it intended to replace the advice of an attorney or other qualified professional.  Mr. Golisano is not responsible for how you ultimately use the results from the Website, our newsletters or answers to questions, including, but not limited to, your decision to challenge your tax assessment, or your choice to participate or not participate in any class action lawsuit based on the information on the Website.  The statements and opinions herein are not guaranteed to be accurate and neither Mr. Golisano nor anyone else affiliated with Tax My Property Fairly makes any warranty as to the information provided.  Your decision to access and use the Website or any information contained in the website or from anyone affiliated with Tax My Property Fairly is voluntary and is solely at your own risk.

‍

‍

‍

January 31, 2024