Petrin V. Scarborough, ME

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE m, MAINE BUSINESS A~D CO~SU'\.fER COURT Cumberland, ss. DONALD PETRI}J, et al. l'laintiffs-Appe!!ants Docket No. BCD-AP-14-03 / THE TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH Defendant-Appellee. DEC!SIOK AND JUDGMENT This is an appeal, punua1>t to Rule &OB of the 1\Jaine Ruleo of Civil Procedure, fi"om a Jeci&ion of the Town nf Scarborough's Hoord of 1\\S~ssment lkview, denying the Appellants' requ~sts fOr tax abatement on the1r properlles. The A]l]>dlants in their brief aJvance three distinct ground;; on wluch the Board's denial of their abatement reque.,to should b~ reverseJ. I) tlw Assessor's partial revaluation of20U resulted in unju8t discmnination"" it wa.• improper'" its scope and relJeJ on flawed data; "<'Xces~ 2) the Assessor's land" program is discriminatory; illJd .~) the Town's 20U! a"ses.<ment program resulted in an unrqual and thus unla.,.ful apportwnm~nt of the overall tax burJen, disfavonng propC"rties located on or near the ocean iiL favor of other residential p1·openi~s in Scarborough Ha,C"d on these argument>, thr Appellams contend that the !:!0!1 "sscssments of their propert1eo ""'" manifie;tly wmng, and th.nt the Board's Jenlal nf their abHtnn~nc requesto should be rever;ed I. FACTUA.LBACKGROUND Appdlam taxpa) e1 s nwn p1·opeccics on or JLear the Atlantic Ocean in the H1ggins Beach, f'inc Point, and Pill'h'1ry Shore> n~ighborhoods ofScarbnmugh The ·[own of S,- a::-borough :\soe'"or ]a, t conducted a row n-wrde ,-, l uation of reo identJal property in 2005 ln 201~, after analy~mg- >ales data tOr th~ period afrer the town-witle valLwtJOn, 1\sse;sor Pan! Leoperance (v.·ho has since ret1red) under·took a partial re;a.lllation of Tuwn rfsident10l pmpPrtJe,, locming un 'pecil;c neighborhood< on or near the ocean. and urmtting intermr ncighhorhood;. A; a rcsulr oi'the partial rp,·aluatJOn, the Asse"sor increasnl the asses.<ed value of the reoidential properties in the targeted neighborhoods, induding the properties ""ned by the (l{. 307.; The a."~sseJ vahte ofpropert1eo mother Scarbomugh neighborhoods App•·llants remained the sam(. !d. The overall result of the 2012 partral influenced propcrry' in Scarborough b~ars valu~rion is that water- a h1gher proportion of the Town property tax burden than it J1d before the partial revaluation. The Apf"'llants appealed their increa&eci assessments to the Bnard of Assessment He,iew (the "Board"), which <onsolidated the appeals, heltl hearings. and lmanimously deraed the appeals on Dcc•'mber 18, 201-~- (K S08.) I!. l. STA}.JD.'UlDS OF REVIF:W Rule ROl-l Generally In a lltde soB appeal, the SL!perior Court reviews findings made hy the municipal decision maker to determine wheher those findings "ere e,idence on the record"" a "hok" J;,.uk ,.,_ bas~d Town~fGeorgdmt11, 136 upon an "erroneous AQd 6!!1-, 897 (11-'!e. 1981). "S,Jbstantial ev!Uencc is 'c,·idence that a reasonable mind would accept a1 sufiicient to 8upport a umdl!sion."' YorA v_ Ton7l ~(Opmqu!l, ~001 MF 53, (j 6, 7~fl A.Qd 172 (quoting Sproulv. Th1s Dec'S'on ana J-,dgment ·~scs the rerm "water-influenced prunerty'" to encutnpa-<s r~al property on or near the ocean ur or.other wace body, includrng w"erfront Droperty. wa<ervww propeny, "'J Olher property near water 2 Town~/ Boothbay Harbor, './000 l\IE ;JO 1j 6 ~4G l\.Zd ~os;_ Th~ court mu1t aflirm [he rleci;wn of (he ~Board:: unless th~l rlecr,JOn was unlawflll, arbitrary, capncious, or unreasonahk" Drisw/1 v. Gheewal/a, •!· 1· 1 A 2~ 1025, 1026 ~.\le l81i2). Procedural unfairness is nv~' sible error and a "dec1sion can Oe 'arbitrary and capricious· if it was not the product of the reqllisite process~.,." inconsis[~nt omitted) "That the recm·d contaim evidence conclu.\ions could be drawn ffom th~ a reasonable rmnd might accep[ th~ evidence, th~ do~s with 12, 802 A 2d !.1!.19 (c'mtion~ th~ adequ~re ~ 6, ~63 A Jo sllpport the A.~d 870, R72 (.\1e. 1992). deciswn bears the burder> of persuasion on appeal_ Hat'U!Ood, 2000 !\H: '215, resllit, or that inconsistent not r·cndn the [Board's] !indings invalid if rele,·ant evidence ao concluoron_" Town uj'V1enna v. KokRrnak, 6!2 overturn '200~ ME !:19, ~~ Hopkm< ,_ lkp'l of Human SenJ<., [l:loard's~ The party seeking to Tou·n uf Sw. H~rbnr v zd !15, 117 (citing Saw;,·er r:n-dl. Recover:y Fa(i/ilie>, Inc. v. Town of Hampden, 2000 .\-fE 1'l9, ~~ 13 1(;0 A.2d 257) ~- Municipal_Tax_Assessments 'The court presume.> tax ass£s.~ments are valid_ Harn',- Head Partner<, l.l.C <-'.Town of CapeEhzabdh, ~003 ME IS 1, ~ .9, S.H A Qd 916. "A taxpayer who seeks a tax abatement must prove tha[ the asscs.,ed valllatlon is ·manrfestly wrong." Terjloth ''- Town of Scarbnmugh, 2014 :viE 57,'] 12, 90 A.sd l!SL A r~xpaye' can prove an asses,ment i< manife,tly wrong by showing I :• the j L«lgTr,e,-,t of the "-"~·'""' "a; irratiu;;al or so unre;;snnable iil light of the circnm.<mnccs that the property wa.< substantially overvalued and an inj L>Sticc rrwl t~d; ~) [here "as unju-'1 discnminRtwn; or 3; :he a.%esoment was frauduJcn[, dishonest, or illegal discrimination, taxpayers must dcmons[r~te "that the a.\se""or's sy1tern 3 nece>~arily results in llnequ<J appor:wruner:l.-' R.>m's I-IMJ, i!OOS MF l.SI, ~ 10, R:H A2d 916 (guotmg C!l:) ~/ Biddifot'd L'. Adam.r, 1999 l\1f. 4.9, ~ H, 72~ A Jd 31·6). Deca,,e the Board wncluded rhat the Appellants Luled to meet th~rr burden of proo~ thi> court will vacate the Board's decrown den ymg tax ahatemen t "on! y 1f the rewnl compels a con \rory f'ond us ion to the exclusion of any other mference_" Te,:f/olh, ~011· ME 5T, 'I Ill l.S, 90 A .sd liS l DJSCUSSIO:\' The legal backd1·op for the analysis -..a, summarized by the Law Court in fVeekle;r v_ Th<' Maine Crmstitution reqllires that ",:aJll taxes upon real and peroonal e1tate, as;e>Sed by authonty of this Smtc, shall be apportroned and a<.<cs.<ed equally according to the jnst value thereof" :Me Cons\. art. tX. § R "Just value" meam market value A{ji-edJ. S«-ed, Inc v_ CJt;- of Auburn, 1~1· .\-le. %, S1, ISO A 805 (1955}. "The sale price of property is e,·idence of market value, which 1s used in detnmining property value lOr tax ""~ssmcnt purposes." fVessor1 11. Tou'11. ~{Bremen, 067 A_Qd .">96, 699 n_ 5 (:\1e_l995). See alw Sha""·mut Inn v 10wn qf'Kermeb.,nkpr,r~ 4.% A 2d 381•, 391-95 {.'VIe. 1.981) (''market value" is "the price a willing buyer woLlid pay a willing seller at a fair plliJ!Jc sale._ in a fi·cc and open market.''), A-rnold''· }dame Stale Highway Comm'n, 283 A.~d 655, 658 (l\1~ 1g~ 1) ("evidence of-..hat the prop~rty sold for in a Uona fide sale i_, most signifu:anl.") (citation omitted)_ 676 A 2d 932, 934 (:vic. 1996). By statute, muniCipalities ar~ required to mamtain property of assessment ratios (ratio of assessed ;allle maximmn of llO%. See 36 M.HS_ § 527(1) to ass~l-<m~nts within a range market valuc)-a minimum of 70% and a Thus, ongomg review and adjustment of asscssmcms arc necessary to assure that appropria(•· a;s.,,ssment ,-acius and, ultirnately, eq'"d appo1tionm~nl <>f thf overall mx burden, are mmntamed. The Law Court has noted that, altboug:h "[('nwnwidc revaluations are perhaps the Uest rnethod ol mair.tamrng equal apportionment nf th<' tax burden from und~rtaking assessors are not precludeJ adjustments designed to maintain equal distribution of the tax burden in the time per-rod bet weer> town wide rrvalua:ions" .Haser v. To·wn 4 ~j'Ph1ppsburg, 553 A.id 1~1·9, JQ50 •:Me. !989)' In A1aser, the Low C'our' held that m~an; s·~ch rev~uations panial are an acceptable of maintammg an equal di.<tnlJution of the tax burden_ !d. The first Df tlw tkee grounds advanced by the Appellants focnse; on the method by which Town cmHlLtct~d the partial revaluation that resulr~d in th~ increased assessment< of Appellants' propertic's l. f'hc Apvellan ts' _(~halleng'' to the Tnwn' s pa.·tial Revalua lion In thi< case, th~ Appellants' parcel" arc located in three discrete neighborhood.; w1thin the Town of Scarhorough. rhe Higg-im Hcad:t ohorcfront, rhc Pme l'oint shorrfront, and the int,'rior pan of the subdi.,iswn known a> Pill<bury 1·evalnation in Scarborough took place in 100.'\ ~hmes. (R 507.) The last townwidc (H. 1259-60.) The objective of the 2005 l'f'Valuatwn was to a.'Scss all taxable real properties in the Town at or as dose as possible to IOO%oftheirmarket~aluc Jd. Ao did the municipality m Moser. the Town of Scarborm>gh has monitoreJ property sales £"ch year and, based un its anolysis of qualifying sale•, made upward or downward adjustment; in the as;es,,ment of specific properties. The purpo1c of such part:tal revaluations is to maintain asotssmcms in l1ne with thf' To..,n's overall ratio vnified by Maine RcvemJe Senices dumtg the agen<y's <:tnnnal audit_ The tact' oC Mv"r are ;urnmarizeJ in the opm10n as IUllow.~o The ""e"OlS increased <h~ vJluation ot all propunes IJy ~0 percent in 1n2. Then in 1.985 (he ag,essors :den:ifi~J certain large-lot subJi,i<iuns m clo•e proximity to the Kennebec Riv~r as ho\ ing substantially mcreaoed in foJr market value (largely due to the clednup ot- the Kennebec River) and inLrcased thcLr val•.Ja<lon by Iitty percent Not e'ery struc~ure w the area ""' tncl.Jded In addition, certain propt!~ies out;tdt the aJea wece incl~deJ ("unusual arcC.i <eetuca!ly-de.<igncd str~ctur~s J~sign~d to ftl a specift~ lot and ,tructures :~at gain m ~ al ue ~iorr. :hell' '.>mgue combin"tion of l"r:d and bu1ldmgs") TLe plamtiff taxpaye,, owners of real eotote in :he sCngltd our Hca, challenged rile JJJCJ'Ca'e 553 A ~d at 1~+9-50 5 In detennimng th~ ~012 Lesp~rance" Le,per"nce' (":Vlr land a"essm~r.ts, the Town asoes,or at tl:e time, P"ul or the ·-,hsessor'), dekrmin~d that, though residential pr-opertie.> v.ere followmg a .,ale;, ratio do;;c to 100%, waterfront and water-influenced n,'i ghborhoods '"ere 126.~-) sak. (R Mr. tr~ckmg .<igni flqntl y low~r at 70-60% ratios of assessed value m value on Thus, in ,occonlance with the Town's method of assessment mentioned above, L~speranc~ focused on the neighborhooJs in which he determined that pmperty a.>>essments were at significant nri•nce from the Town m-erag~ In total, Mr. Lesperance adj u.> ted the land valuations of 7 51- parcels, ind t~ding those owned by the Appellants The revaluation resultf'd in a waterfmnt, a l!5% p~rcels incr~ase fOrth~ ~0% incrca>e in "'"essed value fOr th~ I Iiggins Beach f'ir1e Pmnt watetfront. and a 17% increaSP ro the interior in the P1llsbury Shore; neighhorhood. The Appdlants argue thdt there wo.> no in the record before the Hoatd that would ,1Ilow ;t to conclude that thf'se increases eV!denr~ temleJ to equalite apportionment of the tax burden within the town_ However, as noted previously, ''assessnrs are not precludd from undertaking adjustments designed tn main rain cqtml dietrihulion of the tax burden in the time penod between townwide 555 A 2d at 1250 r~valuations" Mosn, Rather, only a "rOL>gh equality" m tax trt'arment of similarly situated property owners is constitutionally nquired. I d. (quoting A//egheny l'lttsburgh Coal Co. "· County Comm 'n, 4~8 U.S S.%, 31·S ( 19~9)). Before tlw Board, rlw Town offcn·d several exhibi '> to rellm Appel Jan ts' claims of Lmbir treatment These f'xhibits compared neighborhoods with the pre-re,·al!-'ation the pre-revaluation assessm~nts asoessmC"nts for intnior for the wateJ-inflLLenrcd neighhorhooJs that "ere subject to the partial rnahwtion_ Sa. e.g., (R 1224-25.) The exluLits indica teLl that, 'PaL>! Lesperonce has ;ince rctJreJ "' che Towco'; A"essor llowever, he prt•Cou,]y held ~he posmon wa; rcspo~'iiJie for the ~012 vall-'aLJon ~1r Wtlliarr_ He•l~y JS the eucremA<Seoso: as of ;ince ln4 anJ :he <~nng of 20 1.~ 6 before tlw part1al re,aba:10n, tlw n"e;sments for interior, non-wakr-influrnceJ provrties were tracking much clos~r to 100% of the properly\ value haoeJ on soles than [ho.1e fOr the woter-1nfluencd propcrtice "' the revai'.led neJgl:borhoorb. Prr'-valuation assessments in the watcr-influenc<'d ILeighhorhoodo were significan:ly lower than market sah• pnces in those neighborhood>- T!u:s_ the asses,or'; decision to limit the partial revaluation to water- inlluenc~d properties, and the Board's demal of the Appellants' challenge to that decisi011, are both supported Ly subqantml evidence_ Another basis on whirh the Appellants challenge properri<·~ i" that the 1hsessor rcli~d th~ revised values a;signcd to their on old sales dating back to 2006', the year after the ian to,.,nwidc valuation_ They argue that 'uch rdmncc i., wrong as a matter oflaw and also wrong because it ignore" the impact on property valu~s of the dnwnturn m the natioual economy that began in ~008 ("the Great Recession" j 4 Their legal argumrnt agaimt the Assessors rel1ance on older sale• data rests on an advisory opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine regarding a bill m the Maine State l...egJs!atur~ that would have ;Jtered the mcthoJ fOr property tax valuation. Ju<ttce,·, !!004 1\-l~; 54, 850 See Opinion ~j'the A.2d 11+5. The Justices were asked to a<.lvtse tlw Legislature on the constitutiooalJty of a bill that, on its face, wo•.Ud have created "two different hases !Or tax .,-alue purpose,· ont' for property arqllireli befOre the 1986-97 .,.,essment and one fOr all property acqutre<i aftrl that assc.,snwnt.'" Id. ~ 13_ T.npayers who pmcha<cd iheir propf<ty before the !896-97 a.<Sf"'ment would Le ~ssessed at~ vallle bawd on the •ssesoment from the J.g96-l!f tax ' >, ppclbnt.< 1r.L tiaJJ y "rg<1ed t:ld t rei yin g on the old oale.1 was improper regardle;s of external conditiom, l!ut in thc1r rep Iy brief they oppcar w ab.~don t hos arg~m~nr Compare Pis_' soB Brief at 7 .',"A ppe :tants JC>pectfulty ;uhmit that thece is no o:tuation in whwh such a reli"nce [on old sales] would ~e reason" hie, _") uwh Pis' Rep:y Hriefat 1 ("AppeJJants cake no positio" as to "hcther, reliance on old ,.,Jes m'ght be urup~r tn cateo where tf:ere ha; not been a '"" cbnge in the n:at~e: 'n unc"·ening yeor.>. , ' 7 year, while tho.'<' .,.,.;10 acquired their pmpcrty apprmsal value re~ent sin~e th.r Y''"l' wo•Jld Ue asses,ed at a more fd_ A maJority of the Jusllces concluded that such a system was unconstitutwnal for t"'o reasons. l; because it "runs afm~ ol the reqLurernent that a val1d property tax must he based on market value", !d. ~ 16, and 2) because it would lead to "1 he Jisp,o m' e ta' ation of two >imilar or idcntica I propel tid' resulting in u nj \L't discrimination_ !d. ~ lE The present case is read1ly dJstingULohable from rh•· hill at issue in the OpmiorJ of tiM Justtres Th( Assessor relied on "lr.< dating hack to 2006 he>t also relied on sales ffom subsequent years forward to 2012 The Town's partml revaluatiou also applied the methodology to all properties subject to the re;aluation in de•nmining as>e"ments wer~ "'arranted, "beceos involved a two-tier system th~ wheth~r sam~ adjusted proposal disappro,·ed in Opinion rj' the Juotrces The comt cOr!Cludes rhat rhe Appellants have not shown that the 1\s;essor's me of some sales from QOO~ i_, unconstitutional or otherwi"e lmlaw!Ul. See Shaumut Inn v_ fnliab1tants of Town nfKennebunkporl, 1•n; Aid .%+, S90 (Mr_ 19~ 1)- Appellants' alternatrve ba>Jo for objecting to the Assessor's reliance on older sales data '-' th"t rh£ Gr·e~l lkcession had .<uch a significant negati\e e!Tect on property valued as to render sales predating the downtown urndiable Appcllams rrly on their fXpen George l~outalalm, ~nd irrrlc\'ant to curr<:nt mark~! who teotified that the Great Recession had an tmpact on propert,\-' values m Scarborough, indnrling Appcllant.s' prop£r\ie". explained thar he performed a paired ;,Le> values_ analy>~>' fOr;;:~ Koutalaki; properties throughcmt Scarborough that sold befOre and after the Great Receosion. (R 081-8b, J:lSll.) A~~ording all 22 of the propcrtic-_, sold for less after the Great Recession than kfon~ to hlS finding,, ir. fd_ NeH, KoutalakJs found paired sales fOr three properties. one each in lliggms Beach, Pme Pomt, and 'A ~aired •ale., :w.8ly1i~ looks at sa!es oft!w "me r•·operty at two d1fferfnt umes. {R. J:l89.) 8 Prout' 1\-eck showing that :he properties .<old for le" after the reces>ion. (l\. 811-16, ij90-9L:: Fmally, KoL<talalus prepared a !<port on property values in Prouts Nrck, which looked at four sale> and lOur l1oring' of property that hRve no\ sold App~llant.'' rclianc~ fJ_ Koutalaki.<s paired sales ;tudy wa<; nr>t limited to wakr-inJJ.,enenl imerior propertreo_ (R I+D~-08) prop~rties, but included lt did not analyle oeparatdy the cfff'ct of the Great on the water-rnfluenced propert1e" that were rc\'alued Second, th~ Koutalakis study drd not e;tab!wh that thr market values ofwa(CT-inf:uenced properties frll below their value; as a resell t of tlw Gr~at not, in itoelf, low~r sale pri~e The fact that real properly market m~an assess~d Rece;sion. In some of Koutalakis'' paired sales properlles, both the prior sale price and the later, (R 11-H-45) First. Thus_ ;dmt it showed was that the Great Recession caused a c!edine in propnty values town-w,de. l{cc~%inn r·•·~snns_ on the Koutal.okis anJlysis is misplaced fOr "everal were above the pre--~alttation a'S<'ssed value. ,-a],,.,, fell during the Great Rece""ion docs that they fell \o below assessed value Finally, the Koutalakis analysw included data that the ,\sscssnr has sho\Hl "hould not be relred on as evidencc of market value. For example, whcthc1· the assessment was has~d in part on ch.mges th~ Koutalakis analpts Jid not consider tD a structure on the land, whether the sale was an "'tate sale, or whether the raxparr already received an ahat~ment (R. 1146-1202-) In fact, with such data excluded, the Koutalakw analysi., indicates that the Great Recession afl~cteJ >ropcnies less than the val u<'·' nf other property_ and thus (he vaiL l<' of warer-infl ut11~ul 1 supports the Asoessnr's decision to focus tile partial re,aluation on water-influenced properties (R IH~-1-6'.~ 2 The Appellants' Appellants' ~econd ChQ]]~ng:c to The Town's "Exces> L<l_!Jd" Program gro,_md for contesting thcir a-<Sessments i; that the lown of C,carbomugh Lmden·alues "hat the Town defines as ··exceso land" and thcrchy renders the Town's """l'ment urogram a< bemg discriminatory on 1ts face_ Dw·ing the Hoard bearing, the -\.<>eo:;or d~.<cnbed the Town's "exc~ss land program" as followo. ATTORNEY SHU\1ADINE: l.~t me 'rr ifl have tl,is correct, the way that the l'Xcess lam! wmks" that you treat the firs\ "l're ao the horn~ lot and then ev~rythmg above an acrr you tr~at a, excess land Corn·ct' PAUL LESPEHANCF: Ye>. ATTOR~EY SHU.\1ADINE: So "vervtl1ing above one acre is not taxed at market vall>€ because;, is taxed as excess land which is considerably less 1han market value, 1s that correct~ PACL LE-SPERANCE· Yes, Town wide. (R lS\9-Qil-) Ao an exampk to pmve th,'ir point, the Appell~nts ci1:e to th Town's valuation ofrwo the smn~ abuttwg lots JJ\ "1-acre lot asses;~d ownership, a J.l!•-ane Jot on :.1assacr~ at $l s million on Black Point Road. Lane a.'"esoed at $18,000, and (H. l42;1-Q4) Mr. Le;perane~ acknowledged rhat tlw 'vtaosacre Lan~ lot was buildalJle and could be sold separately, and that, v 1 ~w~d fd. as a separate parcel, it has a market value mU(h higher than its ~lS,OOO assessed value. However, he del!:nded tlw low assessment on the ground that "as they are assessed as abutting owners they are treated~~~ one parcel for asses.,ment purpose.<.'' (R 1424.) The Appellants point nut that the tax statute allowing abutting lots in the same owner>llip to be treated as one parcel for assessment purpoo~s reqllires each lot wheat least live acree in are«, see 36 :.1 R S. § ~01-A, mean,ng that the two lots at i'"ue would nm qualify. The To"'n contends that the Appellant> have failed to dernon,trat~ pro~idr any market e\~dence to that the <LS.\rssment practice'-' f(n large lots or lo;:s wmhined for asse>Sment purposes are u nden·al u~d, or if they wen' undervalued, what the mea>urc or impact would he or that any purport€~! impact is nnHJLW to the appellant> 10 However. the record indicates that the To"Jl has establ1oheJ >t practice of valuing an·t, at a rate inco,ki>lfnt with m•rkN ln Maine, "~ljocal "ss~ssm·s ~xrr<s volu~- property, that is property beyond the first Paul Lesperance testdied to th1s pract•ce. ha'e been given considerable leeway in choosing the method or combiHations of methods to achieve j~st Yalua!JOH,," Shawmut Inn, 4~8 A.2d at 390. where indi.-idual parcels ex<St, and ,f tlw a.%C%ors have acted reasonably in the discharge of the1r statutory respons•bility to place a separate as;e'"rnent on each pared a.%rs.<mo'nt will he upheld_'· C!{Y uj AngustJ o·_ Al/Pn, undisput,,d th•t contiguous lots may be a\Srs.<~d +.~H ofr~al csta(e, the A2d ·lo72, 1·76 (Me_ 1981). It is also os one parcel, Jep~nding on the circum.<tanccs /-<icketJ v_ J-lnh[feld, .~90 A2J 1·60, 47! :.\1r l97R;: see al-l'o Allen, 4.'l8 t\.Qd at 476 (rejecting argument '-tlmt a o1ngl~ pared for tax a"e"ment purpr>sC's may never be divHieJ Ly a public road") Ho-wever, it is clear under Mame law that. [TJh.c ,-ery idea of taxation implies an equal apportionmenl and assesHment upon all property, real and personal, according to it< just value_ The Court ha~ recogni1.td in the past, and now recogJLius and decides, that all property should he considered and treated for purposes of taxatio" on an f'Cj ual basis, and accordiug to j usr value. Sears, Roebuck d Cn_ v Inhabitant:; cifC!I)' of PmqW! !<le, !50 Me 181, 185, 107 A.2d 1•75, 477 jl951-) (e~tingBrewer Bnck Cu." fn/1i1hitant.< oJBrm~r. 62 :.fe. 6'2, ~3 (!0'~)) (internal quoration mark> unuttecl), Sa"J-'"r"- Gilmore. !09 Me !69 !71, &3 A. D1stnc~ !20 Me 15, il~ A. 836, IIamdlon v. Portland PiaSlte OpmimrrftheJu.mco;, 97 Me 595,597.55 A 827. L'nder the Maine Constitution. "all !axe< upon real and penoual asoessecl eqllally according to the just v~ln~ th~rcC>f" equivaknt of "markf't value" Shm,·mut Inn v. Toron !081) 6'i~; est~t€ shall be apportionrrl and Me Const art IX,§ 8_ "Just value" is the ofKcnneburdpor~ 4~b A.~d 38+, 089 (Mr. ln dPtermining "jl!St ,-alue," asoessor' nw>l 'consider all relevant fadors, incluJing withou: limitation, the eiTect upon v~l\lco ofony cnforccahle restrictions to which chr usP of the ]] lanJ may be subj~c~ed em-rent '-!S~. phy1i~al d~pr~datinn, sales in the secondary market, t'unctwnal obsolescence and economic obsoksccncc" .% J\LRS_A § 701-A Thollgh Appellmtto h~ve rai.,~d a .,a]id question as to the lfgaliry of the Town's "excess ~and" progra:It, for the following reasons, the wllrt H~calls~ will not answer that question here_ the ''excess land" program docs not affect any of the Appellant"' pro~wrti~s cliflerently than it affecto all r~s;dcntial property in s~arborough, the il"rc of standing arises. In thf COIIl't's vit'W, if the Appellants hav~ standing tn challenge the "exceS> land" progr·am,' it is as taxpayers challengmg a prospective assessment. In Mainf, courts have adopted the preventive-remeJml doctrin<' to determine whnlwr a laxpaycr has standing in a 'uit ag•inst a rmmic1pality. The doctrine recognize> the right of taxpayers to apply to the court for prcwntiVl' relief in che case ol threatened unlawfUl action Ly municipal nfficers, while denying standing to taxpayers seeking remedial relief !Or a \Wong that has already occu n·fd_ .HcCorkle ''- Toum rif F<Jbnouth, 529 A~d jj7, .SSS (.\fe 1987); Buck u. Town q{Yarmouth, -1-02 A.2d 860, 86 1-362 (Me. 1979 ); Co/m1 ''- Ketchum, SH ./I.Qrl .587, .~90-592 (:Me. 197 5). Mwne wxpaFr·' have no ngln to •pply for remedial1·ehef after rhc commission of an illegal municipal act atl<ecting laxation where the act is one that affects the entire community and there is no parricularizcd harm to the plaintiffs bringing the su1t. Tu;ca" t· Smtih, 1.~0 Me. 36_ !53 A 289, 295 (1931), 3<'0 T1lmg v. C1t1 r-{Puri/and, 268 i\.cld SRS, S80 (Me E170). T!mo, in the munit:ipal odting, "taxpayers who dn nnt allege and pro,·e spe~ml injury haw standing to '<'~k only "pr~ven tiv<"" reli~f from illegal action_, by municipal officers " Common Cawe v. State, 1·55 A.2d l, lO (1\te_ 1.98S). "Applicati'Jrl ofthi., dnnrinc is largdy a definitional undertaking. If ' There 1.1 c ~ uestion " to whet:oer, even were pre,•entive rehef sought we th re.<pect to the Town's "e,_ces< Lc_d" ?rograq only the Allomcy Genernl he, standinp; hefe See B11ck c• To"·n rJYarmuulh, 40i A 3J 860. 861 (.\1e 19,9) ("[A]n md1viCu•l cit:,.en wh~ suffer> no particulari"ed inj.:r)' from a pu bllc Wl ong can not seek ,·c:ict from the cnml>; re:ief ,·indico ting puLlic eights m'.J" be sought by tOe ;\ tcorn~y Ceneral of the St,1te Df M"ine_"} Sc, ui>o B!odg'tt o. Schoo! Admm. Dtst. No. 7S, 289 A.~d 4U~, -J,Jl 1_\1~ 1R72) \Vhe:her unly lLe AttoJney Gec.eral cou:d :nmmmn a prevenC"·e ch•Jlenp;eto the To" n's · excess la~o·· progrom need not be deClded naw 12 the •·d1ef sought hy m"nic-ipal taxpayers b-king specwl injury is deemed 'prevenQti\e,' the wurtho us~ door stand> open, if the relief;, de~m~d 'remedial,' that door swmgs shut " I .ehigh v. P11tston Co, 456 A ~d 355, .~.\>' i'-'k. 19~3) In this case, the App,•llants lack ;tanding to ochieve any form of remedial rcli.-f The only relationship the Appellant> have to the wncerning- the "excest land" pwgram program IS that they are taxpayers. The Appellants have tailed to demonstrate m the adminisl1a1ive record that they have suffered particularizt•d harm or loss as a result of the ~xceos land progrom. Thus, if appellants ar~ to have relief at all, tlwy lnLtst demon.<tratc that they are entitled to preventive relief: See Blodgett v Sdwol Admmistrative IlJStnd 73, Me., 289 A.2d 1{J~ {1972) ll~rr, the Appellants have not chalknged the prospcctiv~ application of the prog-ram. Becal!se the Appellants arc not &feking preventive relief, the colu-t finds th~y lack 8! antiing to chall ~n g~ the T O'l'i n'' application of the "cxcrs.< land" program. :J. The Appellants' Claim that the Towri" Assessment R.-sllhs in An Unequal and Discr im inatory Apporti~nment of the Tax Hurclf'r_t The third and final argument that the Appellant" make in their Ruk a n·suh of the partial r~valuation, ~OB brief is that, as che Town has allocated the (a"- lmrden in an unequal, disproportionate manner that unlawfully discriminates against wat~r-inl1uenced properties The Appdlant.e burden to prove discriminarirm requires more than proof that the Town's a"essment program "N~ither do~s not allocate the tax hurden "lth mathematical precision_ the constiturion nor the otatutes expcci that a !Joard of Assessor; could mah an as"essment "ilh all vah>es so exact thar no 'expert' could di.1agree with them" Sean, Roebuck & Co. v_ l"ha6itants afC!ty rfPreJque !Jle 150 "~t:he constitutional requircm~nt .\1~. lSI, 180, !07 A.2d 4~5, J.SO 1\ather. is the oea;onablc attainment of a rough equalny in tax 13 trcaunem ol .>'milarly sJILLated propnty owners"' R,!m's Fbabeth, 200S i\ll: !~], f lO, q,% I-Ie~d Parlne•s, l.J,C o·. Tau?! ~(Cape A 2d 9!6 (citing A!leghe>l)' P1ii.Jburgh Cor<! Cu .. '-'· County Comm"n affFeb<ter Cnly, 1'88 US 556, 345)_ For exampk, the La" Comt has said 'J 'lw undervaluation of or1€ set of oumlarl y situ a ted pro pert1es can m pport a finding of nnjust dJScrimination, even when there is no undervahwtion of th,• general mass of propc-rty. On the other hand_ "[sJporadic difff'nnt'f'O in valuations," or "mere errors of judgment on th~ pAn of the asses.>ors" do not necessarily cBtablioh unjust d1scnmination. fd. (j !1, R.~4 ~2b, A.:Ld 9!6 (quoting Kittf')' 1-.'l<ir L1ghl Co. v. 71·0 (Mc-. 19GG)) (mternal citations ominf'd); Sfe Aw:«~r< rifthe Town qj'Klttetj; 219 A 2d aha Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Toumh1p of JVukifidd, 247 US. :350, 353, (1918; (T.'vl:erc errors ofjwlgment by officials will no\ support a claim nf di>crimination. There mu.,t be ,,onwthmg more--something which in effect amounts to ~n mtemional violation of the essential pnnciple ofpradiralunifornuty.'') Appellants in this case contend tho! the To"n's 2012 assessment r,cheme was manifestly wrong m that it unjustly d10cnminates against owners of waterfront and water-influenced propnties. To prevail on wrh claim, the Appellants must demonstrate "that the as.<~ssor's ·')'Stern necessarily tesu.Jts m unequal apportionment." Rams Head, 200S J\IE lSI,, 10, 854 A.2d 9 ]I) (~uoting City rif H11idiford 11. Adam!, !99.9 MF: 49, •1 14, 7~~ A.2d 546). As mentioned above, the court will vacate the Board's dcci.,ion denying tax ahatf'ment "only 1f the record ~ lS,90A.3d 11:31. ---·' A''tlde IX SecCLon 8 of~he Comtitutwn ol"thc Slote of -~lame nwis a> fullm''' Alltaxe.< upo" real anJ personal P.ltate, a.>Sess.::d by authority ofthlS <late, shall be apnornoncJ m10 a»e>.leJ e1uo!ly, accordillg to the jusc val•.:c thereoO _[but] the LegJSlature .<hnll have pcwer w levy a t•x upon mtangible ?ersonal property ot ••ccoh rate asH dcel!l> wise and t~~itahle wJtllOul regocd to the rate apul!cd w orJ..er cla>scs nfpmperty 14 L'nder Statr law. as.;r>.,i ug: stand~rd., >l> noted above a municipality rs to meet certain minimum The m umcipalit y'o ratw of a <.~essrnent to sale price must be between 70% and 110% of1mt valm;. :30 M.H.S. § 3~7·:1). or less_ ld § requir~d j27(~)- Asse.s;;m~nts muol also meet a quality rating' of~o The;e otandard;, however, do not apply to each individual aosessment, they apply to the muni<'ipality or ;'s'""i"g area as a whole_ (!{_ 14+0-+1.) The n idence befOre the Board ,1s.'e"ment r~tios .<how~d that the partral revaluation improved the and quality rating> in the are«s targeted by n.) 1\o the To\>n pointed out in its brief, th~ th~ patlial re;aluation (R 1224- neighborhood increases in th~ !Iiggins Beach, Pme Point and Pi\l,bury Shore' areas where the Appellants own property resulted in a'"essmcnt ratios dooer to !00% and improved (or in the case of fliggins Beach, rnamtained) q ualr ty rntmgs_ See Appcllcr' s Brief at li-9_ broug-ht rhe overaJl allocation of failed to show that the ag~inst them~ '"·'~·"nr's Thus, the e; ide nee ind1cates the partial rcval ua tion burden closer to equality Thus, the Appellants haw methodology "necesoanly re;ctlts" in unjust di.'<'rimination water-inlluenced propertres m the Town-wide allocation ofthr tax burden. JV_ COKCLL'SJON Ha.,ed on the fbregoing, the Appellants' ScadJorough's Board of Appclk~, Asscssm~nr app~al i• d,·ni€d. The decroron of the Town of Review io affirmed .Judgment is lwreby awarded to the together wirh its costs as the prevailing party. the docket hy rd~r ence ,;; Dated February lll, 2015 A."'i(l. -i--r~non, J usticc Business & Consumer Court 'Quality rating;, obcarncJ by dividing the averog-e de\·ia~ion by the "-..erHge ri\tio. 18-120 c_:-,1 R_ "hSOI,) ~o:x; (~013} De"'"';on rclcts to ~he ditTerenr.e be:wcen an tr.Jrvid"ol ratio ,,~d the average ratio !d.§ 1('\1) Errte<Wool!!<rlockei 15 ~"""''sect vla ,.,2-/'(-15" / MaO_ Elo<ltooioaliy,C_

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.