Angell Family 2012 Prouts Neck Trust V. Scarborough, ME

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MAIKE BUSIKESS A :"'n CONSUMER COURT Cumberland, ss. ANGELL FA'VIII.Y '2012 PROUTS "'ECK TRUST ct als., Plaintiffs-Appellant•, Docket :-lo. HCO-CV-H-59 / T0\\1'\ OF SCARHOHOUGU et al., Df'fendanrs-A l'l'e llf'es KEKYON C. BOLTOK, III, et als., P1a i ntiffs - Appc Han ts , Docket No. BCD-CV-14-59 TOW!\ OF SCARROROUGII et al. Defendants-Appellants DECISIO"' AND JCDG.MENT Pursuant to :'>1Jl. Civ. 1'. HOIJ, the Appellants in th£>£ consolidated cases' appeal the deCJoion of' the Town of Scarboroug-h Board of A<.>c<smcnt Review ·:"Roard"), ~~~u~\ts Appcllmn>' App~llant< dcn}~ng for tax aLate,nento, IOilo"ing the Town's 20U partial property tax in their .Joint Rule' ROB Rrirfarguc the Boacd's deci"on mLtst be reversed tOr four reasons 1) The Asse>Sor >elect< ve Iy targeted " ater!ron t property in three nci gbborhoods for a >llLstantml mtrease in valuation, while allowing wa1:erfhont pr·oper·ty in a The Lo>e.l hods~~"'"'" doo:cet nurr.hec.; -~ :h~ ~,,pet Oor COLlll U•_t hciJ lJeen conwlid•t~d hy che ti"'e rhey \>Ore tJJn>fcrrd '<J tfoe Du>ine>.l onJ Comu:ner (our;, ac.d were asstgncd a single BCD J~cket number 1 SJmilady situated ncigLborhooJ :P'per sr.ore>) w avo1d any mcrease in ~aluatiou 2 ,1 The A.,.seosot' a1 bitraril y exenpreJ ccrra1n mcn·a"' in nh:atwn .J) The A '-\~osor ga H h~i?J' tax bt ,-~I" to w~t~l ",.~cess :i-ont properti,·o li-om the la oJ" P' opertie<, i ruperm is,ible under '\fame law. 1-; The Assc.%or's sales incr~a'e m valtwtion at Fronts "-'eck was b~sn! on unqualifi,·d Appellano' Joint Ilule RUB Bridal 5 L FACl!_;.-\L BACJ{GROL'ND Appellant taxpayer., c>wn properties on or"''"" the Atlautic Ocean, in the Prouts Neck neJghbm-hood of Scarboroug-h (R 2.) In 2012, alt~r neighborhood by H S r•-rcent (H. 01·7-50.) The a.%es;ed amtlJ7.ing sales data, St.arlJorough valu~ of other propNties in rhe To"'n of Scarborough drcreased m remainetl the """'". Bdore 20 12, tl1e last town-wide reva lua twn to rhe Br>arc!, wh'tch con.,olitlated dlt appt•'l.l,, held hearings, and appeals (R ~lnanimously dPnied the G; lL STANDAI'tDS 01' REVIJ-:\V In a l{ule ROB appeal, the Superior Court revJe\\< !he flndino-s made bv the mnnicinal 0 ' 0 dct'iswn maker to dctermin~ "heth~,- thow findings were bast•(] L!pon an "erroncolls interpretacion of the Jaw" or ba<ed upon ,om:lt"-.on< r>[ !act not ''sL!pDorted by suhstantial uflluothbyHmb~r, ~01)0 the ~Board::' unless rhat Mr 30, 'I(,, 71·6' Ald J68)- "The Crmn mmr aflirm the dec:>ion of deci>ion was ur:la>vtUl "rl>Jtrary. rupricious, or Hnreasonable_" Driswll Hopk111s v_l)ej/t ufiJ"man ,\'ervJ., ~002 _\11': !29, 11 u_ RD2 /\.. ~d 999 (cJtationo omitt,,U;. 'That the nYo rd con Iii"" ,,·idenc e mcon1,i<ten t with the nsu l t. or that inconsis 1ent conclusions could he drawn ft om the f·v 1dence, doeo not nnder might ac(ept thr' rdeyant henna v. Kokrrnah, 61~ cvid~11ce a< th~ [lluarchiJ llndinf\'-' in' alid if a rea.>onable mmd adequan' to oupporl the [Board's] conclusion_" Tou-r. uf A.2d 1'711, 872 (\k JU92) The party seeking- to overtllrn the decision bear< Ihe burdrn ofpers11asion on appeal. 1 o~n oj'Sw_ ll_nbor v_ Iltwcwod, 2000 MF. 2JS, 711~ A ~- ~ 6, 1d 115 (ci[ing Sa:t:ye~·J-.'nd/. Recoo·ny F>a!J/1e<, Inc.''· To:vn '-!/'Hampden, 2000 ME 17.9, ~I Municipal1 .1K Asse.'->ments \\'ith reopect to juc!Jcial presume< tax asst'r,sments ""~ ME IS!, ~ 9, 1:131· A 2rl ll16'_ 90 A sd 1131- A taxpay~r r~v1ew 'alid of Jrmr.icipal tax as.,~s,ment.< Ham·, He"d Partner<, LLC '-'· ToU"n specifically, a conn if Cape Eltzabdh, 200.> ".\ taxpayer "'ho St'ek' a tax abatenwn( must pw;·e that the can pro\C an ass~;;.,nent '' nmnifestiy »mng hy showing. 1;. the _'iuclgm~r.1 dthe "·''es;or was 1rrational or so UJLrea.<onable in light of thf CJrcc:m\lances that the property wa, suh<tan(mJly ovenaluctl and an LTljusCic£ result~d, 3 LI.C ''· h'~»!1 ~(Capel-.'h-::;abeth, ~OO.l ME I :II,~~ JO, IJ3·1 :\.~U 916. "'\e1tht'l rhe const'11ution t'xact lha~ no 'c~pert' could di;ag,ye with th~m." Sean, Hoebuck Presque fsle, 150 l\fe IS I, of waterfront anJ 18~, l07 A \\ater-mtlu~nc~d Board's deciown denying ta~ QJ 1~-\ 1·80 propc•l'IJcs & Co v. fnhabltllrJ/s q[Ci!yof (lOS+). Appellants in thi' cose cont€nd that l\s m~ntioned abow, tht• court will vacate the abatcmer.t "ouly if the r·ecord L'Ornpcl~ a contrary conduswn lo Asd!l51 "Taxpayers can plC»e chcnmination only if they show that rhe as\t's;or'8 '}'Stem {citing C!!y ofB,dkford '-' Adams, 1999 ME +D, f[ 1+. 7~7 A.2d .H6) "The undervaluation of one 'et of .limilarly ,,ituatrd propnt1es ca~ support a finding of unjust Jiscrinunation, ~ven when there;, no underYaluadon of the general ma" of property.'' hi. '] 1 L On the other h~nd, ""omr 'peri lie instances her,• and ;her~-- of unJernl•.ration. "~Sjporadi<' differences m establish lHJjUS\ Jiscmnin"uon. !d. (c;Iing K'lie1}· Flee. I.ight ('n., l!l9 '\ 2d 7~5. HO (\le !9661; .)undqy Lukt ,-\[ fro11 ta~es Cn v. 'f'unn.<l11p &(lVakcfidJ, Z47 US. JSO, .'15:3 : 1~1]<;', !"CMJen errors of' upo" r~ol JJl(! pcrwc.c; cstote, """""J ny authvmy ,,fth> .>t&:c, sldl he e~pN(!Onecl :::L>ut J the L~g1oLot .Jet 'ha:l have p::n·o,al pro;><rt) al '"ell t"e as it dcum """ a>:d :he , ote 'P?lied w ocher cbsscs ''' Dl uper~}'- oM J»essc·J ea uo 1ly. accMdJug to the j llSl ' "I tiC Lherecf _ J->ow~r :o !ely" tax 'P0n eq u'L-.bk ";rlwut t'Op rd :ntang:hl~ Lu 4 mDn'-.>onwdting: wInch in d!tct "rnoe>n t.' ~o an i r:ten ticm d vioL1. ~JOn of the c.,oential pcincipl e of tlus Court will ,-~c,le the HoHd's ci~CISion de" yin!?; lax abakrnent ·'only if the rc.cor<C wrnpe:s a contr"ry conc!il>ion to !he excluswn of anv other infcr~nce Tc:rjloth. ~014 ME .o7, ~ 1-~. 80 AsdtiJJ Ill. DISCUSSION '[oOl)ll ~(Si'arbornugh. The :Vfainc ConstitoHIOTl nq•Jire' tbot '>Jll taxes npon real and personal estate, assee.ced b}' ~uthority ofthi< State, sha1lbe apportwncd and a.,<e"ed equally according to the just value thereof_" Me. Cons!. an IX,§ S. "Jll>t value" means mmlcet value. Alfi'odJ. S-,;,eet, Inc. v_ C11) ~(Auhtm1, I% Me. 28, ;:11, 180 •\. 80.~ (!955)- "The sal~ price of property i., n·1denc~ of markn valL,~. which i_, ""ed in determining property value fOr tax ;rssc.,;rnent purpooes. fFeo,vn o·. Tu-:t•n q{Iinmen, nc: A ~d 5\!6, -'•9\l n 5 ('1.-Ie. !9.95). Se" also Shawnw.t Tnn o·_ Town~( Kennebunkpvr~ +lb Aid ;J84. Sl!i-.95 ~Me 19~!) ("market val lit'' 1s "the price o wdlmg- b<qer wnalJ pay a willing sell,,r at a fair public >ale ... in a free a\ld open mar],et"}; Arnoldv_ .-\fame,~tate H1gh-way Comm'n, 2~3 A 2d 655, 65H ~M~ Ill~ I; ('e,idenn' of what tbe property ,oJJ fOr in a bona fide sale is most '<gn~ji..·<Jnl. "}(citation oHutted;. 076 .-\.td .9.~?, 9.H (Me J.9HO). In thc.s~ consolidated ,ales, tlw Apuellant" ha,·e been rev<Llllcd. ar~u~ dwt, if the Towr.'s pactialreva!uation They also argl!e that cercoin Prou1.1 N~ch properl!es >hoLtld )n,ve !->Pen indl!dt'd in the 1·cvoluation ntthcr t[wn ~x~mptcd. and that th~ increa.o~ f(Jr !'rout' Neck was In addition, they contend that the Town's "exc~~' land" program<s discnminawry Tile cHtL 'wa(Lr infi r once~ D' Oj;erll~;" ~eCe" Co r~,.: p• operty the vc.: "" of w hi,·C_ IS ""hnccU hy .. ufwatcc Lo\lLJg~. walec VLC»o ,,. ?' ox:,·,ty to a '"trr bod\' VLCt~e 5 revaluation's foe"' on »aterCtwtt ag:ai u> t th~ ~nd water-inihenccd propeties unjustly discriminated owr.cr., nl wa t~rfro:~t and wmer-infc uenccd t eo !den ti:d propt'l t tes g~nerally mrri·s some dJscu.,ion ht'rc·, g1'·en that 1t is tarseJ i" >e>e,·ol of the ,\ppellant,' argun1euto in l \Vl:~tht'r _the As\P.\>or's Ilec!Sion 10 _focu1 the ){, qJua[ion on Water-Influenced Properties and to Exc'uJe_ Interior Pronn tie' Unju>tlv DiktrHninoted Ao-3i!'"_t Own~ro Q.f tile Rev a] ued Pr·9 pernc< By swtutc, n1lHucipaliti~, arc rcr;"ired w mamtain property "'"essm~"t' withiu "range of &sse.ssment r~tios (r"liO of ass~"ed volne to morket \·allle'-.-a nllrHmum of 10% and a See.% M.RS. § maximL<m of 110%. S~~(l)_ Thus, ongoing 1~view and ad_i\JStment of il.<sessmrnts arc neces.>Ol)' to assu'-~ that apptopria~~ aosessmt'n( ratios and, ultimately, cqLml apportionment of the overall lax burden, are maintained. Th~ rnerhod of Law Court h's noted that. aithough '·=c]<>wnwid,, revalL<otions ar~ r~rhap< th~ lJest rna~ntaining ~qual ,opportionment oft he tax burden u;sessors arc not pr~rludeJ f,·owundntaking aJjL<<tment; designed to mamcain equal chtnbmion of the tax bunlen in the time pn wd h~:ween townwick revaJu,otions ' ,\faon v Tv:c·n ?( Phrf}sburg, 55.'! 1\.'ld 12-49, 1!:50 \!Vie 1%91 4 In ,lima. th~- Law CotJrt held that ·"'"h partial revaluation\ are an acceptable means ol mainlHining ''" equol di;tr:hu:ion of the tax b,_,rden U. The"""'""'' iHcce,"d the "'luJlwr_ oO'al: pcorccue_, by j!) perccn: in lYSe Then in !985 the '·"eosors JdennkC cer"W\ ldr~e-.ot >e.Lot>J>Jo,-,, '" cl0'e uco~lll'.llV to tht Kenneuec fuvec ,, . hd\lllg st.bscant:,,ly 'ncrea•oci _n fon· ncoc~N \Jkc :'largely Q,_,e •o che d~ar:up oftlle Ker.ntbee l'.i,er~ "nd u:creoscJ their ;aluo<ioc. by Ol~Iy pecce::~ 1\o: every scruc!ur~ ir, the areo was . 6 l'ndc'' cucren: law, " ntcomc:pahcy io :ceqL<ir~_d '.P t!lfet certain II'Jmmum a';;e1sing lrt tbs caSL', rhe·]n,: town-wide revaluation cook pi nee ir. 10t),i_ -:ll. 588 :. The of the ~00,\ 1evaiuation "'"·' ohje~tive w set the vailh' ol' all pcopct·cic., in the Town at. or as close a., Id. possible :o, !00% of the1r milrkcr value. Sinee the town-wide valumirm, the Town ol' Scarborough has monitowl properTy valll,·s and pniodi,·aily adjusted %se.sornents_ ba.<cd on a rc\·,luatwns_ revaluation Thc rnuuinpalicy in Mo,-er "!Jhzcd .>im'lot methods m J>elforrnmg the partial a: i%HC in that case 'l'i'e goal of the fOfiiLHlHng adjmcmcnts is to keep assc1.1ment; mall tax JWighl>orhoods agency'> ~TL!l.!dl ] 11 audic d~'!:~rmining wl:ether am] [Q re.<idcnrial properti,·s in Scarborough, what cAtem to cng~ge in a partial rev~J"ation oi' A<efSSOr Paul Lespcnnce' ("1\-fr_ Lcsp~_rance·· or the "A"e;sor") odopted a cutoff <iarr of .\prli l, 20\2. !Or ,ales dato. meaning thm hr did not consideJ sales occurr·ing alter that date. (R lfi4-IG>, 5b8.) He determined that while in,·'_Jd~d. !11 oddi:'.<Jll, cct".e.c, prore'tic' oul,ide the <nta were mcluJcd l"llnUsnol aJ chitectural iy-duJ gn~d -"'-,c:t>"C' cle,:gned to i' t e j~,- !0( a•:d >tr• Jct[Jres tC.at grlin in vnl Je f, om :heir umq uc co'""jr.,:ton of lanG "'-d btnlding' '" T:-_e pi amC!Jl '"-' p·•yers, ow "tc> of re,1l estacc 111 t~e ,;mg:cct Oll~ are", chollengoG l:Je '~crea'c 'I'"' .'i63 A ~J nt 1H9-5U -, P a .J 1 I.e' pcrdn<·e ho 1 SJ nco r c~Jred '·' ti"e Tow u', :\ ""''''' 9lt:c~ 19" 1 ond "" re,ponSlb,c tO: L'.e 2L1:2 •he spclllg of%!3 >oluo~wn 7 Ilo·.,·e\ N, he pte' :ou' l_y he Ij the position 11-Tr w::!umi-Ie,ley 1; Lhe curren~ -~sst"or "' Df 1nt1uencfJ nc,g:!Jbodwods wne adjLoted lpward;;, Th~ 2012 a.«csomen; r-e,'-llrr.J 11. o 11·b'X inc,·caw in pt'Opert'te> in l'ron:; '\'eck 1H 5Wi) The .\ppcllento argue the t~at "'~nation of the :\ppellanto' there was no e\·idr·nce ir. rhe record rhnt wo"ld an'" chc Hoard lO c·c,ndude til.'\'. the_ p·Jrtial rna:uat1on "ithin the tuwn in~reascd panty Howfver_ "a.esesson arc no: prcl'luded t'om undertaking adju,tmcnts designed to m~intain r~ual di.qnOution oi tlH~ re,·olrwt1ono." .fhser, .~.~,3 A2d ot 'i ndar 1y st tllated !" o peny Coal Co.''· C•;mlt_y Cnmm'n, 0\' ne,.,, +~8 usn (dX hurden in tbe time penod Letwc-en towm,ide Hath•'', only a "roe1gh is cor_< 'i LUtwn~ll y rq u iced L".S .J:\6', S+.~ e~ualiry" m t~x rrcarment of Jd ~ c1 tin g Alleglmry f'l!t<burgh 1!089/·- Bdore the Board. the Tn" n oF.cred ;e\'eral exhibi !8 to rchrn Appdlants' claims nC unfair lreatment These ~xhib1ts cnmpare the assessments for interior prov.nreo with as.e.<sments for the waterCront and watrr-influenc~d properties th~t "ere subject to the partJal r~va]uaiion. In each of the cxh 1lJit<, the A.%•·Mor <hows that the as.<e>Smi'lliS for interior propcnreo were trackmg much do•c.r to JOO"h of the property< \alue ba;ed on oales (R 161--!6-") Aosessrnenh on rhe water from propenJc>, huwcw-r, WCJT much lo\Ver than sale prices, v,)uch rr.cans Ihe ""e'Oment.< on thrse proper!Jes w<·re low_ Furth<'r, Exhihit T-41-l shows that the r·eval ua tion materio II y Jm)>rovcd dec a verag~ ratio nf assc.'ied ' a]JH~ to market va I ue f[om 83% Thus, the coul\ li:Jd< tlrat the Asst''sor's dec1sinn :o in'""""e a."e;smeuts only fOr "" te,·-fnflncnced prupcrtie> wa, j "' tifl cr! ~nci wpyor ted hy the e\'ir!ence, and did not unjust! y diS<'nminate "[;amst 'he Appellant.<. However, Ih·, conch~;ion rlne, no: fud the inqui•')' OecaLJse Ihe Appellants have rai1ed a vw;ecy ol rnor~ opec:t"c objrrtwns IO the manner by which thf reva I ua":ion >.as cnri,·d out w 1th ,.,,,pee-!: to their pro perti "'. 2. \VhetflN 1he _,-}>Se;sor ' De rio i''~ ~o H~val ur Prop~ni~s in the A ppc II ant;' !'\_fi gh bor ho0d_ and Tl,ree Otiler \V JcNft OIL t and \V a tc·,- I n1; "enced ~cigh bodwocis \VhJlc '\ ol He,~ahunu- the T'inN Shnre, :\e1g :"_hor iwod. W rongblly Dioct ircnnated A\(<LJnst Appc]lat:lo The f;nt orgumcrH )'Ies~nted _n the AppclL:a:s' kre~ i; that th~ .'Hoesoo:'s decision w revalue rhe c\l'flellant5 Pro·.1r< Ned rwighborhooci " w,·ll ao :be Higgins ond PrlblJ:1ry ShoH'I "~'ghbc>rhuud, "'h,;c omining the waterii·ont Pipet (;'ven t!w-:: the -"·""·""'' hat) Uecid~d H~ad1, ~bores Pine Poini ncig:hhorhood. to foct" rhe tevaluatwn on wat€r-infinenced ne JghlJo,-h,1och, oay the Appell.1r. ts, the simit11 it ie:! betweea cbe rcvalllt·d areas and Piper Shores cotl'prlleJ the A<.St'><N ret r·~,a!ue Piper Shores"" »dl They abo contend rhat tbe Assessor had euflic;eut data to incrcosc :he va1ut'' of Pipec Shore's propcni,'s. and that he wrongfully •-efused to con,id,·r a r~• qu~lilied >ale indJcaung: that properties m the Piper Shm·es area should be alue<i. During: the koa rd r-.raci ng, the Appe~lan ts prrsen ted the testimony of Lt•sl ie Craig, an experienced real estate ager.t, to tb,, erTrrt rhat pwperty ,.a]"es in l'iper ~hores move in Ihc same way as value., in Iiw Prouts Neck area. ar.d tlwrdOre, that there was no ju1tiflcation tu tevalL,e Proulo ~eck Om r.ot Piper Shores_ The Town contc·nd1 thm the Pipd Shores cbracter from the Proms Neck and di, 1i ngLushing feeT u re' reflected m oth~• nri~·hb,,chood i8 ;rgnificantly dillerem in "<lter-influenccd nrigi1bochoods. Am~ng the th~ r~cord • Tbe Piper Sho1 eo neighl)()rhood enco,npns.,eo twe~ty ,·~ry large watcrfi·ont parcel; along t»o miles ofcoae:lir.~ while f'wm; Neck h?.> o'er ~IJO parcds on less than a half mik ofwa,tline (R R; +21; +2C, 1-30.; • Pip''' Shore retirement fildity is :Le 121 ;. no compa,·oble facility. • Prom> Neck lm> a beacil club ond orC1er p,.,._,Pnt m Piper Sbmc,, :ll. 1~0 -:R l~rge<e 'axpa;er m Piper ShmY$. Prouts Kcck hos a:r.~nitirs awilable to rrs;dento that "''C no: In addinon, tht Town contend.> :ht Ll;~ pauc"v of·'"]~, data ir. :br f'iper Shores area 9 HiQ) Th~ <econd pcopcrry "'ld Exhibit T 26 is the Apnl 29,2012 R101, Lnt 20 w~n~ under cor: tract ire .\1arch .<ol~ 1~pon ~011 and the s.le closed Oil for th.i.> parcel, th 'Can·n·· pro1>~tly, .\lap ·rhe sclllng prict' \\·1-S S2,R00,000_ I.S% abnvt' the propelty's "'·'esoed \'alue oi f<trst, it occurred after-dak thr ;\soessm haG ~dc>Dted b,J( admittedly only a \V~r·e f~w »ccko after-- rhe April 1, ~012 cutoll thi; dw wle hasis lor the ,\oseS<or's decision not to include the' l'tper Shnreo neighhorl:ood in the par:ial re\aluarion, the dcC"ision might be more ,-,:uerahle to challeuge, cspcc,Hlly sine,' the Assc-·"'" used a: least onP post-AptLI l sale in his patred sale analysis of the Prouts :->rck IJetghbm·hooci Hnwe,cr, the AsseS\tJr'' deci.<ion uot to ll,;e ~he Ca,ver prop~rty as a jllsttfication fOr revaluing the l'tper Shc>re; ncighGorbood reot; on ruore <iliJ>tantial ground property i, a rc<identtal property of about bulk n!' th~ land hos he~n 1<0 arres, with sepa"o(e\y sakable house lot The enr•.Jmbered hy a cuns,n·ation '<l\ernent . '-'PC!l opEc' t"-' P'"'t':c>lm , an~ DHTt of thf h~d arr" ·. (R ~ o l-61 ) R ,,_.,.s . p1·evwc'.d•: The Town's r urren t asS.'\sor, \\'ill,arn He" ley, t~sl ~r:d enrolled ;n fa[[u and enroll~d i J:ed th~ t in the t':-e~ '-'TOW\h. ~· (he pat eel's eaBrnlen t and enrollment m the cllrt<'l'l use tax program, would preclude the t:\e of conotden'd m th~ Town'" anm.ol sales and uno 10 .<t~dtes. The CaJ>er '"l~ li·om hemg ami :hat he wodl not celv on thJO .-\ppe!;onto' iu argn~reut un~'J "a] appvnonm~n t " reg.,·ding tl:e rxdu,:or. nf' Prper Shores from the rrva.imnion here the- o1-<e\><Jr recognind tha; "rhe ,eJcccion o!' oue or a potfntml fm· cre~[ing r~,-a ~ ueo ff'w one r ci ghbor hooJ. whik aut rc\·a luiug a :.rcas fior revr,ion of propc"y ,;t]u~.>" hao the Jrscnmination. uot c-wry selenive revalnation conMitmes llnjllot neighltorhood, bl!t ,!Jd LO! re<:uce val'l<'' 'n ti1e dJiacC'n\ uerghborhood of Granite Point .•.. ,- ' "d MF•. "-'1 .- ,,, ,_, .-,_ or 1 ~-. f'oiHt neip:hburhood !d. at l[ 1·, The taxpayao 72~ A_2d ~ppcabl UWU to the C>ta\e Board of Property ·rax ~\ 3J.8 J /owewr, ! he Adam< eo.\e i.o Jistmguishable on its far\-~- The Law CoLtrt in Adams upheld thP Board'< findmg of disc1 immation on fOLn ground.,, l) Certam mal'lhland was con<idered par: of the median lot srze in Granite Point, ben simibr rowr;hland "'"'not con;idc-n;d in Fo,-tllllf-1 Rocks_ !d. at~ 1~~) Tht' Hoard fC.und rhat t[Je coastol neighborhooJ, 'Hrc homogenous . .1) The A"'Ps.sur'' deci,ion ro Jec~ucc th~ nerg:hho.Jwod facror based on his ·'g:ut fed in g" was or hi I t ary w the 'it'\<· of the fl,--,.o rd. Id. at ~,' l ~ +'- hi. at~' !7. Th~ Board found that Biddd;,,-d rhenged the "'''ghlJOrhood cude for Granite Poi~! to rhat ofBrddcfn,d Pool and ri:en mcd '"''sales iH Brdddord Pool, one foe mor~ rhan as;essed c·.olue and one fo~ Ies<, ''' jc:>rify <lenymg a n·ductior. in the a%t'Ssrnems fN Gmnlte Pnin:. \\"irhirr a two-year p~riod thereaftn it changed GrMlite Point hock to a sepacate neighborhood cude_ Thi$, the Board wnclud~d, wa' arbitrary and "mdi,'o ri•·e of cbar:gmg n' Jll!be:"s m wr t a situatioe m tiw tmre it happcno." in ti-ois ""'~, rwn,, oft!:~ ~ben·~ ele[!lenrs r> )"'C.I~"' Jler~. there;, no pattern ofarbiuary that Ih•re ar<' '""''''iu1 di<l;.rer.ceo bet'""''" tilr Prp~t .'iho,·r., molghborilood and dte ,;otcr- inn uenc<·<! neighbor honds tba '· were rn·al.wd \V(,ile th~ Hoard c·o•.Lld h"'" dr'''" a wntra:y concluSion b,~,; on other evtdence, 6 the court review., 1he li~ding:s Jllatle hy ti:e Bo~rd w de:ermine wilnher rlwre wa1 an rrror ofbw or 'Ahethc1 the CO!lclmions o:fact were "'fported Ill~}' b~ :~_v ouh;;rantia],'vHlenc~ on thr record~' a nlJ,·ioLl> or easily int'Crred frotn the reNrd arrd tlw ger.eral !it~tual llndings." !Fells c·. l'or/!and Yacht Club, 2001 l\-Il•: ZO, Re-m·;va!Ct,-_ v. '[,-w, ~110, 771 Ald -~71, .~7.:; I_C;ting Chmtian J-;1/o~·slllp (lnd ~fL,mm!ftnn, ~00! _\JE Hi,~~ JO, 7(J'':J A_2d S31·) In sumnmry, there was .Silllicicnt evidfrrce on the n'ronl to jll~ti(y th~ Ass~>wr's deci.•:on to revalu•' the !'routs Keck r>eighborhnod and o:her wuter-inlluenced rrergl,bnrhood., in Scarborough, but not the l'iper Shores nnghbor hood -~- \1/hether rhe A%e,s;or Pmperlv Excludnl Rryaluation Cert~in Prou[s J\cckPropenie; Fr·om the The Appdlantl arg:uc that the Assr.<oor shoLUd no[ h"v~ e;.,_dude'd fo~r Prout.< Neck propert1es from the renluation The_ .\ppellRrrts incrc:lo~ rr~sentcd evidcrre be-fore Ih~ Boanl tbt \-lr. Lcsperanc~ Llid not tlw valnation oC rtll waterli-c>rll and \vcrcr-,nt;ucnc-ed properties in Prouts Rathn_ lw excluded LOI> 16, n. 1<0, arrcl +:i ii·om the n'valu1tiorr. (R 5':!1) i\lr. 1'-i~d<. L~.1perawe tc,trl!cd tha• Lot IG ;hould hav~ lJeen ir~c1uded 1n the ,-evoluation, but wa' mn;tted clue to a "For ~>.ar~plc_ ti:e Hoard t'ou.d the tc>tim-Jt'Y oOI .cd'e Clo.g,' b\uker of!>'.g'.-cn~ r~a! c·>ta;e m Pr0.HS Neck and P.~er SC>ores unvrsua.•·i,~. Cra'~ tc>::~ed LhM rhe t\'!0 r:c·ighhothoocis are .;rmrlarly a ttcacti' e TO the <a me h 1gh-~n~ '""'~et of ~uye" ' H ~Cf!-:'S ' 1! c-wcvec, the Bno rd cur.rl udcd th oc despne Crm g'' testHr>Qn l'. '.he ne'~h IJor h~crJ > we~ mrl'fcec. t codi11g error. fd Futher LN 22 WOi .'\ooonatir>n ond the ;n:pcow'r.e'11.< n~ fXckdeJ ~~""'"'" it was owl'~rl bv the Prout;; Nee~ tiw lana comi.>rcri or.ly of H aathhnus~ wo.< already adeguor,•ly v:rlued basel~ on''" limired ut 1)1ty and demand. hrought by ahllttno. (R 59J-9+.) jmti~ed finally, Lnt -1-.G was The ,·ow-r iinds t:~at thc·s~ <'Xdt<oions have hcc•n adequately >md dn not ckmom:rate con"rust discr·imirratton explanatio.,, for excludin:; coc-h proue·rty. ~vidence and char:gmg .\-Ir Lc.<pcrance ~rovided reasonable The Appcllanl.,, oro the ocher hand, ]ll'O,ided rro that _\Jr. Leoperance'; excht<ion oC fou" properties with distinct, if not ur.iquc, characteristic< among ILe more than 100 P''<'pntie; u: Proms Kcck !f.\Lilted m uneqnal appor-tionment or di.<criminarcd 4 ~garmt tLe Appel~ ants \Vlwlher th~ Asoessor Propcrlv Rcli~cl On Sales Prior to the "Great l!ecession" and On Three Sa!es Al:~g~cll\nt "' JL~'-f 1-leerr Anns Lcno-th Tran.,ac,!Lons Appellams r~i,e lwv argument; regarding Iiw sole" of 1-'roLtts Neck propt•r·ti~s that the Assessnr r·dred upon m detcrminin:; rn increase tC1e a.s;essed val uc., of their propen:ies_ Appellants main!~in thctt the economic downturn in 1008 ~what they term the "Great rendenng the• A.,>eosur'o reliance on sal,';; wiot :u 2008 arbitrary and uureasonable Four of tlw .-ight quah5cd s"h-s of property in the [''""'\.\ Neck neighborhood relred upon by l\1r LC.'Jl~""'''e pre-datt•d th Great Rece;sion- How~w-r-, evrdenc~ the Town'.< ~viden('e 'rrdrcateG r:1Je proper~)' values in rh Prouts I\'"eck of two "p:c1red sale<" 'n ti1e l-'couts Keck n~ighborhood-;a:es of the same property ~l 'Toese >Ok> Erclu-le _\lop 1, Lu: 15 \\hh·h w,-_, sold rn Dc·ce:nl--~.- ot~t'O'i_ .'v!ap :A J,ot ~f05 '>h.dr "'-' soU·,, .lanuory cf200~ .\ldp L9, ).a( 1 "hidr ""'-'"10m J"nc of 2006. on<"~ Map 19_ L~t H, wh:ch wa< so:d !JL Ow,h~r of i!OUJ (H 61-1-1·6 ;' dirTnent t:r"~"'- ll~ccs.<on con,id~r (!1. and tile ~47-ti5~) oth~l In each ;nswnce, one u± th,, ocJes tooh wok plocr Jcmng- or dlter Ih< Grear i{ecesown plac~ be!0rc the Great Thus, th<' [Joard ocou]J these p;,ireG soln parcJCIJ!>Jr2y :lillmma:u-,g- in :enm of the effect of the Great Rcces;·;on ;'pon l'roCJt> _N,yk property' ,J,,e; Th~ firot poired sale W·" ol tloc plnperty at 5 Richm<>nd Row, wfnch sold ;n 200> lOr $.S.J mil! ion (n% abow "'"""sed vabe) and agmnrn 201 J for ss_.~ millwn (lS% abow assessed ,-alue). ThP oewr.d ]J>\Jred .sale""" ofthr property at 2 Jocc1yu Road, whid1 sold in value drd not decline appreciab1y as a result <upport ~ third inthence rhat, becau.<~ o~ the Gr~"t ~oor; fm .H Recrs.<ion. Tho&e point< i" turn tire Great Recession "'"' not 8hown to ha\e had a "rgnificant cfl"tt on l'roL>ts Neck prooerty values, pre-Great Rccc·.esion sak~ remain valrd indkator., of mar kcr value The Hoard rca.•onably d,,cidd that the paired ;deo data :nrlicated that property >alL>es m !'roms Neck remained rcla:J\ely stahl~ throug!t the Great Hece;sion t·ourt a:lirm< the lloarJ's f;nding that the paired sa:~, for thi, reason. the were ap]nupria[c market indicators for prope:-ty value rr. Ii11s cast' prupenres on the gro'Jnd th<"relOr~ th~t rhe transaniuns were not concluded a\ arms-k1,gth and are not "qualif:ed ,,ales" Map 19, Lot 0: Appdlants conrercd that tins prc>peny i.< P. "com;>O~nd >tyle" propaty that "~s sold to NV!, con1mi.,1iunec Roger Goodell Th~ .<ale wa_, not Jist,•J or cxoosed IO the g~neral maricet FGther. the As;:,'ssor admiHeJ that !Ius .>ok should Le tak~n wrth a "grain of salt" !R 6f:l-4+, 51+--15.) 14 Map 18, Lot Qi.O.~: th:s wa; t!w shle nftnlii,prcowd wrt1loge o·-vncd by the Black Point Inn_ (R, •J 3.~, RI ~-I 1· ) A ppelhn ts CUJ,tend t h H thi.> wao H pri\ 1. te oalc• between abutters, t and "a' not +iJr sale tn I he m~mhero of the genen.l pubLc_ Hather, it was only open to in' e> tor., of the I r." or those' " i!ung m pay a .~r,o.c-oo particJ pa non fee. (R 6+ 1) Map 19. Lor 17: A~pt•lL,,t; c•"Htud :br lh.o wa< ")Jiivat~sale to an abutter, hov.evPr, !he propeny sold for its assnoed -..-alue \R- ~++--!·6.) "tax assc·_,,coro arc nnder both a constitu:wnal and otatutnry obligation w In Ma;n,-, detcrmmc t!w 'Jus! "'' lue' of ta<a hi~ pro IX'-' t y ." '"] "'': val '.Le i; the eq ui valent of' nl~rket val n~-"' The Law Court hao -·defined rnarlcc[ \"abe as wdling oeller at~ Lur publir- ><Le Ft'dilk, ~~~ A.2<1 tiw exact val He. A sale is paCe!, not at 17.1 ~-1ay repr~.,e11t i"vestr.wnt, po.s,ible fUmrc value, or it may represcn• Sh~-,~·mut thing:,_" Presque ble, ~.-,o lrm, 1·i!8 A.2d a\ ~8U th~ price a wi\lir:g huyer would pay a ;\n actual recent sale "shows sen[iment'U ~'"·locatio!:, nlu~ or valll~ wh~t as an ur any one or more of many ·:c:t'ng: Sea,-,, Hn,/.rd it! Co J)_ Inhabit~"/' q/CJty of .\-Ie 1~1. HiS, 107 A ~d 1·75. ?79ll;,5-J,))- "T<1e weight to be given to the sole pr·it'e. however, d•·pend> upon the petitioner·\ z.bility to ohow that the sak price w~s indrcativc of th~ pnce a willing b·tyer wo;~ld p~y in a frc<' anJ open mm-ket" Silammut fnn, 128 A.Qd at .~~H-9 5 E.;.JSt The mm het place mu' t be one " hae norrr:ol , m opposed ta ~xtraordinary, conditions Sncet, i :l l· i\!e 2 ', 1 50 A 803, ;;G i· ,; l9S.1) In thi.< ca>e the 1\.ppel:ant> pre>entod no eYidrnte "" dw recorC that the nan'"ctions c-omide1ed by dte As.scs.eor were le>S tiwn arms-lengch. \\--h!le Ollf sale w~s to all abutter, the P'·operty so;J /C,r i~o ass~S>cd >aiue, and d1d not or, 1t> fat~ app~a,- to lJe other than •n armslengch transanwn. sho"ld not o~ A1 to tile nrLer scles, thae taken a' mciical;ve oi market vabc_ 15 J< no inU;cotion m ch tecord that those 1ales !\; r.r.>ted in 1hw ~OLlrt"s <iec!S!On m Petnn v. valu~' RGC>l:!se th~ nceos land po1icy was noC JpplicJ m ;my of the App.-llants' propertJes. the Town'< poltcy. "-' roxpayers In \lkir.e. court.< hi\'.e adopt.Yl rhe prewnti\e-remedial doC(nne to dctccmme whnher a tox~oy~r im" stanciing :" ~ ou:t ag~inst a muni,·ipal!l)'. recogmzt'& the nght of taxpayer., ro appl:· to dw roar! /Or thr~~l~ned prcv~utive The doctrine relief"' the case of unlawful action hy ll!lULicipal officer$, while dc'nying otar.ding ro taxpayers _,ccking rernedwl rrlief/Or a wrong that has alr~acly occurred i\hCorkle ''· 1 otw oj'Falnwuth, 5QC! A.l!d Maine t"xparers h:;,e r.o right m •pply /Ur rrn:.·dml relief afrer the commi$oJOn of an illegal m1micioal ou where thr "n lo one that .o!Tects d-,~ <'lltire community and there" no particulanzed br'H to th~ plaintit!S bringi"g :he sr~ii '• See TuJc\m ,. Sm:lh, ],'30 Me. 36', 1.'5.~ •\. 2<;9, ~'1.~ r:l9:11 i; T!lmgu rrl}' r{l'crt!ard ~6'8 A ~d Ob8, 8.90 (M~ !9~01 . Further. wlwre the remcdwl mjul'y duimcd '-"one shored "~~ally ),y R!l the n1rml>ero ofth~ wrnmcmity the action ·n.e Tuwn ,;don~'_;, "exec" :,~G" wrogcom o_y cot::enJin,; tlLtLL[c~ lora] va:ue n:accd on the mam prop~rt}' and rhc ""-"~·'·''and ccfeds r:".Olr CO<:>I:i~hl mcc«.e~ v"I'.. C, buLthe Anpellar;t, r.o,o dt>t the 'c:xce<S land" pcccd> are Lc, ':1ct <»es<e-l '"P"''ar.dy a· well Uel"w ma,-kcl \oil.e ' --~.-\::> mdl'.Ldual ,-,tiztn who"·''"' 3 lJO po:•.:c.l!'.,mt~ :C.:ury E·om, ~l.hhc 1\c~ng con rwt.1eek rel:d fron1 the wt.ns. :·c]Jc:' 1n :1 LCd ~:ng ~t:oi ic l 1g Ill> m . '' ~e "'"b~· by t~e A:to,-IJO}' C~ne1 :tl of the State at /1-lain~" B'"" ''- Taw11 ofY"''"""';,\. 402 ,;, 5n al EO!, R/oJgw ,_, Sc!,ool/lhun D"!. :'v'o, 73, ~ggA 2d 1·07,-J,ll·:Mc !Wi2,: 16 """ll Le orou,:hr b; :h" :\(Torney Genera: of ti;e S:mc 11 ccprescr:tmive of liOt only the B";.lcyr•. lYPiL. lJ.l l\lr 111. 17+ ,\_ alleg~ do nnt +5~r (19J{r e.nd prow -:pecial mjury T)n,s, in the m:micipa,l odtinr;, ·taxpayer< who ocandins w i1.w~ s~cl; only 'prev~ntive' r~licffr-om actwm by mumci;xU of!iu,·s."'' Cam,.,oh Causer. Stalf, +55 A 1d 1, 10 (.'de_ In tim co>c, the conc~n:Jng th· c.xc~ss gcn~ral 19~3). lnck ;tondi"g to 3chine any tircrn of r~mnlial relief land program. The only relatJOnlillp the Ai>pdbnts havC" to the program i., that they are taxp<Jyers inl1uenc~d App~llont.\ illegal App~llonto challengC" the f>Olicy ar·gumg chat v-.merfi·ont And water- propertiC".\ bear muci1 les" of a rdation;hip to market value than as.,e.%tnents of rc<identml pmpert1e; \\i[hin the town Howewr, Appellant$ have faikd to demonstrate on the administrMi, e record tha[ the exce.ss bnd program affects rhc_m diJierently than it do~s :Scarbomll gh taxpayers g-t·~cr" I! y. Rather, the claim is more of a g~neral grievanc~, the effcd.l oJ whid1 are suffcr~d by the entire connrwmty_ Thus. 11'Appdl"nts are to haw rdtd to pl~veative relief. Blodgett 1!- ~tal:, dwy mllst d~monstrate Schoo! Adt,llm-l!raln·e Dislncl 73, ....1e, [hat they arc entitled ~89 A2d 407 (19~2). I !ere, [he Appellants have mad~ no cia1m dmll~nging the prospcrtiH, application of' the program I nst,•"d, Appell on to have uti~iz,,d :he Town's applica tio~ of the prngratu a; tan?;cn ual oi tlw exces.s lanJ prog1 a:n. ''' 'Ap_o 1 icr.no" A thli doclrin~ ;, largely" d~!lmuu:.al underlok:cg It Lhe re]id sought by muni"ipol tox pa I •c'Klng- .1 oecre: lnj ury ;, dect:lCcl pceveNal.Ve,' •l-_e courlhnllse duur -''tond5 open. if Cho rdief is dee:ned :-cmedd, Lhot door "'mg' 'hut' Leh,;;h '-' I'il!!lu;, Co .. -1"6 A 2d S55. S5~ IJ\-le l9S.1) J'''' 17 IV. CONCLCS!O'\' .lu~gment A:>peilecs, alvng with 'h"" Pur.<lJHir\ !u ,\1 R is gr~nte{t to the or~rr into cost>~' pr~\aCling parti~.s Civ. l'. -;-~. tile clerk;, hereby dir~uer! to incorpor-ate this ~#~ the dock~[ Uy refCr~nc~. .-\.I\!. Harton, .Ju~'.ice HL.8mess I'< Cnn,uH:er Coun 18 Keuyon C. Bolton Ill. dnd Angell Family, et <1!. v. Town of Sc<Jrborough BCP-CV-14-59 Plaintiffs Kenyon C Bolton II! Bolton Juniper Ledge Tru~L Matford Jloldmr;lnc_ Eileen GJile-,pie Trust Ed"ard M~ynard Trust Martha Hallward Nan '>1cEvoy Boyle Tn1st & Investment Fronk Olson Sarah Olson CPC Maine LLC Counsel: W%:>m Dale, Esq. PO Box 9785 Portland, ~1E 011[H Angell hmily Tunothy Bartol Trust 26 Jocelyn Rd Nonunee Trust Jarne' Kohlberg Mandal~y Realty LLC 30 Saccarappa LLC Lee Sprague J.HWallonJr. Counsel: Jonathan lllock, Esq. Kris Eimicke, Esq. 'v!errills Warf 254 Commercial St. Portland, ME 01101 Town of Scarborough Defendant CounseL Robert [r.,wford, [sq. JOel Mowr, Esq. f'O Box 9729 Portland, \-JE 0410~

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.