Nature Church v. Bd. of Assessors, 429 N.E.2d 329 (Mass. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Nature Church v. Bd. of Assessors, 429 N.E.2d 329 (Mass. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …henever a problem of subject matter jurisdiction becomes apparent to a court, the court has 1193 'both the power and the obligation' to resolve it, 'regardless whether the issue is raised by the parties ⚠ not in text
25 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Matt (mass, 2013-01-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Matt
Mass. · 2013 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
courts . . . have both the power and the obligation to resolve problems of subject matter jurisdiction whenever they become apparent, regardless whether the issue is raised by the parties
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Talmo v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Framingham (2×)
Mass. App. Ct. · 2018 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
henever a problem of subject matter jurisdiction becomes apparent to a court, the court has 1193 'both the power and the obligation' to resolve it, 'regardless whether the issue is raised by the parties
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John W. Baldwin, Jr., Robert N. Baldwin, James R. Baldwin, and John E. Baldwin v. Thomas P. Connor, Jr., Maria H. Connor, John J. Connor, II, Nicholas Kourtis, Polyvinyl Films, Inc., and Indusol, Inc.
Mass. Super. Ct. · 2024 · confidence medium
“Courts … have both the power and the obligation to resolve questions of subject matter jurisdiction whenever they become apparent, regardless whether the issue is raised by the parties.” Id., quoting Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) EDUCATIONAL DIVIDE REFORM, INC. v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE & Another.
Mass. App. Ct. · 2023 · confidence medium
EDR's failure to appeal the assessor's denial of the abatements within three months of the city's determination deprived the board of subject matter jurisdiction.4 See Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adoption of Anisha
Mass. App. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Custody of Brandon, 407 Mass. 1 , 5 & n.3 (1990); E.N. v. E.S., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 182 , 186 n.12 (2006). 6 We also note that courts in the Commonwealth “have both the power and the obligation to resolve questions of subject matter jurisdiction whenever they become apparent.” Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aquacultural Research Corp. v. Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Commission
Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
See also, e.g., Thornton v. Kuzborski, No. 11-P-1942 (Mass. App. Ct. March 14, 2013) (unpublished Rule 1:28 decision), citing Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981), and Mass. R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maxwell v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc.
Mass. · 2011 · confidence medium
Partnership v. Katin, 431 Mass. 601, 606-607 (2000) (party *100 may raise subject matter jurisdiction at any time); Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981) (courts have “both the power and the obligation to resolve problems of subject matter jurisdiction whenever they become apparent”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William B. Rice Eventide Home, Inc. v. Board of Assessors
Mass. App. Ct. · 2007 · confidence medium
By unsuccessfully applying for an abatement, Eventide was responsible for paying the full amount of the taxes due, $105,992.81, to preserve its right to appeal, but never did. 13 “Since the remedy of abatement is created by statute, the [Bjoard lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of proceedings in which this remedy is sought where those proceedings are commenced at a later time or prosecuted in a different manner from that prescribed by statute.” Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. Miller
Mass. · 2007 · confidence medium
Partnership v. Katin, 431 Mass. 601, 607 (2000) (party may raise subject matter jurisdiction at any time); Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981) (courts have “both the power and the obligation to resolve problems of subject matter jurisdiction whenever they become apparent”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MacDonald v. City of Everett
Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. · 1999 · confidence medium
“Courts and other adjudicatory bodies have both the power and the obligation to resolve problems of subject matter jurisdiction whenever they become apparent, regardless whether the issue is raised by the parties.” The Nature Church v. Board of Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Peterson v. Peterson
Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. · 1995 · confidence medium
Although this is a petition to establish a report rather than an appeal on the merits of the case, it is established that a court has “both the power and the obligation to resolve problems of subject matter jurisdiction whenever they become apparent, regardless of whether the issue is raised by the parties.” The Nature Church v. Board of Assessor of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sheridan v. Action 6 Bay State Travel, Inc.
Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. · 1993 · confidence medium
However, it is established that a court has “both the power and the obligation to resolve problems of subject matter jurisdiction whenever they become apparent, regardless of whether the issue is raised by the parties.” The Nature Church v. Board of Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Commissioner of Revenue
Mass. · 1990 · confidence medium
Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981) (appeal filed two days after statutory time limits).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cummings v. Secretary of Environmental Affairs (2×)
Mass. · 1988 · confidence medium
Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Guzman v. Board of Assessors of Oxford
Mass. App. Ct. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law School, 295 Mass. 489, 493-498 (1936) (improper form of application); Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981) (timeliness); Children’s Hosp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Children's Hospital Medical Center v. Board of Assessors
Mass. · 1984 · confidence medium
Nor do we suggest, in any way, that the board has jurisdiction to consider an application for an abatement “where those proceedings are commenced at a later time or prosecuted in a different manner from that prescribed by statute.” Children’s I, supra at 838, quoting Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Children's Hospital Medical Center v. Board of Assessors
Mass. · 1983 · confidence medium
We have held that “[s]ince the remedy of abatement is created by statute, the board lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of proceedings in which this remedy is sought where those proceedings are commenced at a later time or prosecuted in a different manner from that prescribed by statute.” Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981), citing Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law School, 295 Mass. 489, 495 (1936).
cited Cited "see" Scannell v. Ed. Ferreirinha & Irmao, Lda.
Mass. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981); Litton Business Syss., Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 383 Mass. 619, 622 (1981).
cited Cited "see, e.g." I.S.K. Con of New England, Inc. v. City of Boston
Mass. App. Ct. · 1985 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare The Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 811-812 (1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The Nature Church
v.
Board of Assessors of Belchertown
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Dec 11, 1981.
429 N.E.2d 329
Eric Walgren, pro se., Stephen B. Monsein for the defendant.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 83%
Citer courts: Massachusetts Appeals Court (2)

This case is here on appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board), refusing to grant the appellant an exemption from taxation for the fiscal year 1978 for certain real estate located in Belchertown. The board, after hearing the merits of the case, concluded that it had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. We find no error.

Eric Walgren, pro se. Stephen B. Monsein for the defendant.

The defendant board of assessors denied the appellant’s application for an abatement on December 19, 1977. The appellant received notice of , the denial that same day. A party aggrieved by such a denial may seek review of the assessors’ decision by filing an appeal with the board, within three calendar months of having received notice of the denial. G. L. c. 59, § 65. Berkshire Gas Co. v. Assessors of Williamstown, 361 Mass. 873 (1972). The board found that the appellant in this case filed its appeal petition on March 21, 1978. Despite the appellant’s assertion to the contrary, we hold that the board’s finding is supported by substantial evidence, specifically, a form acknowledging receipt of the appellant’s appeal petition, marked with the date noted above. The board concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had not prosecuted its appeal in accordance with statutory procedures. Cf. Assessors of Marlborough v. Commissioner of Revenue, 383 Mass. 876 (1981); Assessors of Sandwich v. Commissioner of Revenue, 382 Mass. 689 (1981); Greeley v. Zoning Bd.. of Appeals of Framingham, 350 Mass. 549, 552 (1966); Old Colony R.R. v. Assessors of Quincy, 305 Mass. 509, 513 (1940).

The appellant now argues that it was not required to establish that its petition to the board had been filed in a timely manner because neither the defendant board of assessors nor the board raised the issue of timeliness prior to the hearing before the board. This argument is without merit. Since the remedy of abatement is created by statute, the board lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of proceedings in which this remedy is sought where those proceedings are commenced at a later time or prosecuted in a different manner from that prescribed by statute. Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law School, 295 Mass. 489, 495 (1936). Courts and other adjudicatory bodies have both the power and the obligation to resolve problems of subject matter jurisdiction whenever they become apparent, regardless whether the issue is raised by the parties. MacDonald v. Carr, 355 Mass. 120,122 (1969). Commissioner of Corps, & Taxation v. Chilton Club, 318 Mass. 285,287 (1945). Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law School, supra. See Attorney Gen. v. Baldwin, 361 Mass. 199, 203 (1972). We note that the record in this case is not so unclear as to require a remand for a determination whether the board did, in fact, lack jurisdiction. Cf. Assessors of New Braintree v. Pioneer Valley Academy, Inc., 355 Mass. 610, 619 (1969).

It is not necessary for us to reach the additional basis for the board’s finding of lack of jurisdiction, namely that the appellant failed to prove that its application for abatement was filed within thirty days of the mailing of the tax bills.

The decision of the Appellate Tax Board is affirmed.

So ordered.