The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-03-072
pas “YOR Te 39 bo
OGUNQUIT FALLS
MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff
v. REMAND ORDER
aaah Sean
TOWN OF OGUNQUIT, Re ees
Defendant nov @ =e
The plaintiff is the owner of The Falls at Ogunquit which is a vacation resort
property. A dispute arose regarding its 2002 property tax assessment. An abatement
request was filed, a partial abatement was granted, and an appeal was taken to the
Ogunquit Board of Assessment Review which denied the request for abatement. A
further appeal was taken to the Superior Court.
In a letter of January 29, 2004 the Board informed the plaintiff that its appeal had
been denied and included brief findings of fact taken from its December 10, 2003
minutes.
In a series of cases the Law Court stressed the importance of local boards making
adequate findings to allow judicial review. See, among others, Christian Fellowship and
Renewal Center v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16, 769 A.2d 834 and Chapel Road
Associates, LLC. v. Town of Wells, 2001 ME 178, 787 A.2d 137. It is insufficient to simply
state as a finding that a witness testified to a particular point, that a board member said
something or, in a conclusory fashion, that certain requirements were or were not met.
The Superior Court needs to know both what a board did and, at least briefly, why it
did it.
In this case the appeal will be remanded to the Ogunquit Board of Assessment
Review. The Board is requested to indicate whether it found that an agreement was or
was not reached between the assessor and the plaintiff, which granted a partial
abatement in turn for not appealing to the Board for an additional abatement. The
Board shall also indicate why it reached its conclusion on this point. The Board will
also examine the evidence presented by the parties regarding valuation and indicate
why it found the contract assessor’s valuation to be more persuasive than the evidence
presented by the plaintiff. If this is done the Superior Court will know both that the
request was denied and why it was.
The entry is:
Remanded to the Ogunquit Board of Assessment Review with jurisdiction
retained by the Superior Court. Once the Board has submitted its
additional findings to the Clerk of the Superior Court the Clerk shall issue
a briefing schedule to allow for supplemental memoranda and oral
argument.
Dated: October 29, 2004
—
Paul A. Fritzsche /
Justice, Superior Court
PLAINTIFF:
DURWARD PARKINSON ESQ
BERGEN & PARKINSON
62 PORTLAND RD
KENNEBUNK ME 04043-6658
DEFENDANT:
WILLIAM H DALE ESQ
JENSEN BAIRD GARDNER & HENRY
PO BOX 4510
PORTLAND ME 04112-4510