The Maine Supreme Court rendered a decision Oct. 21, finding for the town of Bristol and for the Lincoln County Commissioners in denying an appeal on behalf of the Bristol Taxpayers’ Association heard in oral argument in June.
According to court documents, the case stems from a 2002 town property revaluation in which 65 landowners filed applications for property tax abatements disputing the valuation factoring methodology, claiming the process was discriminatory toward those owning ocean front property.
The Bristol Board of Selectmen denied the abatement applications, and the Taxpayers appealed to the Lincoln County Commissioners, who upheld the selectmen’s decision.
The Taxpayers then filed a complaint in Superior Court, which was denied, resulting in an appeal to the Maine Supreme Court.
In evaluating the case, Justice C.J. Saufley wrote the decision, affirming the judgments of the Superior Court that reviewed the decision denying abatements by the Lincoln County Commissioners for an abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.
According to statute, a property owner is entitled to abatement if he can demonstrate that a property was substantially overvalued, and an injustice resulted from the overvaluation; that there was unjust discrimination in the valuation of the property; or, that the assessment was fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal.
The court documents show the Taxpayers conceded they never put any evidence before the Commissioners to show the individual properties were overvalued, and did not argue that the assessment was fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal, but argued instead there was unjust discrimination in the assessment process.
The court cited precedent wherein a taxpayer was entitled to abatement when it was demonstrated that similar lots that abutted his ocean property were assessed at substantially less value than his own.
However, the Taxpayers based their allegation of unjust discrimination on the fact that their properties were treated differently from properties in other areas of Bristol that were not similar to their own.
“Simply put,” writes the court, “because there is no dispute that parcels in the Town were assessed consistently with other parcels in the same class, the Taxpayers have failed to make out a basic claim of unjust discrimination. They do not argue that their lots are actually overvalued or that any fraud or illegality has occurred. Therefore, the Taxpayers’ abatement requests were properly denied.”
Representing the Town of Bristol, and appearing in oral argument before the court, attorney Ervin D. Snyder of Snyder & Jumper in Wiscasset said the decision didn’t set any sort of precedent but does, “confirm that [the] assessing agent’s process was at least acceptable. There haven’t been any significant requests for abatements since, that would warrant any major change, other than the every 10-year revaluation.”
When asked which party shoulders court costs, Snyder said he believed “those folks [Taxpayers’ Association] have to bear the costs.”
A member of the Taxpayers’ Association, Tom Wales, voiced disappointment in the decision, but said, “I’m not aware that the Taxpayers would have to shoulder any costs in this case,” noting he would contact his attorney.
“Clearly we are disappointed that the court did not see our point of view, and it is very difficult to take a case like this and take it out of [Rule] 80B [of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 80B is a Review of Governmental Action appeal] and the court decided beyond 80B,” Wales said. “We still do feel they looked from one angle, and weren’t open to another point of view here.”
Wales also said the case is very complicated and had hoped the argument might have set a case law precedent.
“When they went before the town, they did not prevail,” Snyder said. “They went before the Commissioners, and they did not prevail, and then to the Superior Court and they did not prevail, and up to the Supreme Court. All of the actions were affirmed.”
