The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. AP-06-38
AP-06-39
z~al r'i.t\R? 2 I' 2: 25 1". 7
)"
,
.: ~-,/ "
LINEBERGER FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP
Plaintiff
v. ORDER ON 80B APPEAL
TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH
Defendant
and
JAMES E. LINEBERGER, JR.
Plaintiff DONI-ILD L
"' .~" .IA.' liP.
. GARBRECHT
v. . ,RAPv
TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH AUG 02 LUUI
Defendant
Before the Court are the consolidated appeals of Plaintiffs James E.
Lineberger, Jr. ("Lineberger") and the Lineberger Family Partnership
("Partnership") pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B of the Town of Scarborough
("Town") Board of Assessment Review's ("Board") decision to deny Plaintiffs'
requests for tax abatements.
BACKGROUND
The Partnership owns property improved by a building that is located at
17 Massacre Lane in Scarborough, Maine ("Massacre Property"). Lineberger
owns property improved by a building that is located at 10 Saccarappa Lane in
Scarborough ("Saccarappa Property"). On September 21, 2005, Lineberger and
the Partnership ("Plaintiffs") applied for tax abatements of property taxes
1
assessed on the Massacre Property and the Saccarappa Property for the period
between July I, 2005 and June 30, 2006. The Town assessed the Saccarappa
Property's land at $690,100 and its building at $37,900 for a total value of
$728,000. The Town assessed the Massacre Property's land at $1,187,900 and its
building at $240,200 for a total value of $1,428,100.
On January 3, 2006, the Assessor for the Town ("Assessor") denied
Plaintiffs' abatement applications. On March 2, 2006, Plaintiffs submitted
Applications for Assessment Review to the Board for both properties. The Board
convened a hearing on both appeals on March 31, 2006. At the hearing Plaintiffs
contested only the Assessor's valuation of the land for each property, agreeing
with the valuation of the buildings. At the hearing, Lineberger presented his own
testimony as well as the testimony of Albert Childs ("Childs"), a licensed Maine
real estate appraiser. The Town presented testimony by the Assessor.
Following presentation of the evidence, the Board requested that each side
submit proposed Findings of Fact. On June 27, 2006 the Board held a hearing at
which it voted to deny Plaintiffs' abatement requests. Subsequently, on June 29,
2006, the Board released its written decision on these matters, essentially
adopting the Town's proposed findings of fact. Plaintiffs timely filed this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court reviews a zoning board's decision for abuse of discretion or
findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. York v. Town of
Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53, err 6, 769 A.2d 172, 175. Substantial evidence is evidence
that is sufficient for a board to have reasonably found the facts as it did. Ryan v.
Town of Camden, 582 A.2d 973, 975 (Me. 1990). The burden of persuasion is on the
party challenging aboard's decision to show that the evidence compels a
2
different result. Twigg v. Town of Kennebunk, 662 A.2d 914, 916 (1996). The Court
must not substitute its judgment for that of a board. [d. Further, a board's
"decision is not wrong because the record is inconsistent or a different
conclusion could be drawn from it." [d.
In seeking a tax abatement, the taxpayer must overcome "the presumption
that the assessor's valuation of the property is valid." Yusem v. Town of Raymond,
2001 NIB 61, <JI 8, 769 A.2d 865, 869-70. In order to overcome this presumption, a
taxpayer bears the burden of coming forward with affirmative evidence proving
that an assessment is manifestly wrong. [d. <JI 8, 769 A.2d at 870. It is well
established that in order for a taxpayer to prevail in challenging aboard's
assessment, "the taxpayer must show one of three things: (1) that the judgment
of the assessors was irrational or so unreasonable in light of the circumstances
that the property is substantially overvalued and an injustice results; (2) that
there was unjust discrimination; or (3) that the assessment was fraudulent,
dishonest, or illegal." McCullough v. Town of Sanford, 687 A.2d 629,630 (Me. 1996).
DISCUSSION
I. Effect of Plaintiffs' Failure to Challenge the Assessment of their Buildings
Plaintiffs do not maintain that there was unjust discrimination in their
assessed values or that their assessments were fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal.
They only argue that the Assessor's appraisal was so unreasonable that their
properties were substantially overvalued resulting in an injustice.
A threshold issue is whether Plaintiffs can prevail in light of their failure
to dispute the assessment applied to the buildings on their properties. The Town
asserts that they cannot, relying on a case in which the Law Court stated that it
had "never sustained an unjust discrimination claim based only on a single
3
component of a total assessment, without a showing that the property's total
assessment was discriminatory." Roberts v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 2004 ME
132, <JI 3,861 A.2d 617, 617-18. The court went on to note that "[p]revious cases in
this Court have found discrimination after comparing the total assessed values of
similarly situated properties." Id. <JI 3, 861 A.2d at 618.
Assuming that Roberts is applicable to tax abatement cases where it is
argued that there has been substantial overvaluation of a property such that an
injustice results and not simply to unjust discrimination cases, the Town's
argument nevertheless fails. In Roberts, a taxpayer's property was physically
divided "into categories based on the characteristics and potential use of the
property ... [and e]ach of these categories [was] assessed at a specific rate." Id. <JI
2, 861 A.2d at 617. Rather than argue that the cumulative total of the values
assigned to each category resulted in unjust discrimination, the taxpayer argued
only that the valuation applied to the "Rear Land 2 portion of his property was
assessed at a rate higher than other Rear Land 2 property in the Town." Id. In
response, the court held that a taxpayer cannot succeed in an abatement case by
arguing that only a single category of his property, rather than the property as a
whole, was overvalued. Id. <JI 3, 861 A.2d at 617-18. This is logical given that it is
only when a property as a whole is assessed in a way that does not reflect its true
market value or is inconsistent with assessments of similar properties that there
is a "constitutional harm." See id. <JI 4,861 A.2d at 618.
The Town's interpretation of Roberts would turn that case's holding on its
head. Whereas Roberts instructed that a taxpayer may not succeed in an
abatement request in which he compares only the assessment of one category of
his property against the assessment of one category from other properties
4
without reference to the total value of the properties, the Town's interpretation
would require a taxpayer seeking an abatement to not only plead that his whole
property has been overvalued in relation to others, but that each individual
category of his property has likewise been overvalued. Nothing in Roberts
supports this. Plaintiffs have argued that their land is overvalued and, when put
together with the Assessor's valuation of their buildings, the total value of their
properties are overvalued. This pleading is sufficient.1
II. Proper Legal Standard
Plaintiffs argue that the Board applied an improper legal standard in
determining whether their property was overvalued to the point that the
Assessor's valuation could be considered "manifestly wrong." Specifically, the
Board stated the following:
To meet the legal threshold of what is required to prove "manifest
error" in a property tax appeal, i.e. the taxpayer's "burden of
proof", the Taxpayer must:
a. Present evidence which that Board accepts as credible
that impeaches the validity of the assessment and
b. Provide evidence and proof of the actual fair market
value of the applicant's property that the Board also
deems credible.
Only if the Taxpayer satisfies both of these burdens is the Board
authorized to engage in an independent determination of the fair
market value of the property for purpose [sic] of granting an
abatement.
(R. at 125.) Plaintiffs argue that this was an incorrect formulation of their burden
of proof in that they should not have been required to offer evidence impeaching
the validity of the assessment.
1The Town's interpretation would lead to the absurd conclusion that so long as
an assessor correctly values any single section of a taxpayer's property, a
taxpayer could not successfully seek an abatement regardless of how large the
overvaluation on the remainder of the property.
5
In support of their position, Plaintiffs rely heavily on language from
Yusem v. Town of Raymond stating that "[i]mpeachment of the assessor's
methodology alone is insufficient to meet [a taxpayer's] burden [in a tax
abatement case]." 2001 ME 61, <JI 13, 769 A.2d at 871. Plaintiffs assert that this
language does not support the Board's interpretation that a taxpayer is required
not only to present evidence of a property's fair market value, but also to present
evidence impeaching an assessor's methodology.
While the language quoted by Plaintiffs may be ambiguous when read out
of context, a thorough reading of Yusem makes clear that the Board applied the
correct legal standard. Yusem was a case in which the taxpayer "presented no
evidence of [his] property's just value and no evidence that his property was
overvalued" instead relying upon "perceived errors in the assessor's methods to
make his case." Id. <JI 10, 769 A.2d at 870. Essentially, the taxpayer argued that
"notwithstanding [his] inability to demonstrate that the result was other than fair
and just ... he [was] entitled to an abatement because the process by which that
result was reached may have been flawed." Id. <JI 12, 769 A.2d at 871. It was in
this context that the court stated that impeachment of the assessor's methodology
by itself was not enough for a taxpayer to meet his burden. The court went on,
however, to state the following:
In sum, when the taxpayer fails to provide the Board with evidence
of just value sufficient to convince the Commissioners or Board that
an error may have occurred, the Commissioners have no basis for
inquiring further into the assessor's method of determining just
value. Because Yusem failed to present evidence that the
assessment was manifestly wrong, there was no reason for the
Commissioners to scrutinize the manner by which the assessment
was derived.
6
Id. <[ 15, 769 A.2d at 872 (internal citation omitted). This section of the court's
opinion makes clear that while presentation of evidence sufficient to support a
finding by a Board that a property is overvalued is a necessary step in any tax
abatement case, a taxpayer must also impeach the assessor's method of
determining just value. Any other conclusion would be contrary to the
instruction that a tax assessor's valuation of a property is entitled to a
presumption of validity. Id. <[ 8, 769 A.2d at 869-70.z Therefore the Board applied
the correct legal standard in making its decision.
III. Substantial Evidence in the Record
Even under Plaintiffs' proposed legal standard, they would have been
required to provide credible proof regarding a different valuation of their
properties than the Assessor's valuations. Given that the Board explicitly found
that Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy this requirement, remand would only be
appropriate if the record evidence compels a different conclusion from that
reached by the Board.
Essentially, the Board weighed the credibility of the testimony of
Plaintiffs' expert Childs against that of the Assessor. 3 Childs presented no formal
appraisal, but did present a "land analysis" on a spreadsheet during his
testimony. This land analysis included properties from both the Ferry Beach area,
2 By merely presenting evidence in support of his own valuation, a taxpayer can
at best establish that his valuation may be a reasonable one. Because the taxpayer
has the burden of proof before a board, such a showing cannot demonstrate that
the assessor's valuation was "manifestly wrong." To do so, a party must attack
the assessor's methodology.
3 Lineberger also testified and offered his own estimates regarding the value of
the properties. In reaching his valuation, Lineberger looked at recent sales in the
neighborhood, derived a per-acre value from those sales, and then applied that
value directly to his property. Plaintiffs' own expert discredited this method and
Plaintiffs do not argue that Lineberger's testimony before the Board provides
support for their position.
7
referred to as the "West" neighborhood, and the Lanes, also referred to as the
"East" neighborhood. Plaintiffs' properties are both located in the East
neighborhood. Childs used only comparable properties from the West
neighborhood, however, and stated that the "general consensus" was that
properties in the East neighborhood could be expected to sell for 15-25% more
than comparable properties in the West neighborhood. Childs, however, could
not provide documentation for his sources to support this "consensus" nor could
he provide documentation to show how he chose the differential to be applied.
As a result, the Board found this information to be "unsupported hearsay" and
found "no grounds to justify the market differential stated." (R. at 126.)
The Assessor also testified at the hearing that, in his opinion, there is no
interchangeability between the East and West neighborhoods such that a straight
15-25% increase in the values of properties from the West neighborhood that are
comparable to properties from the East neighborhood would accurately account
for the difference in values of the properties. (R. at 40.) Further, the Board
thought it important that the Assessor used sales data from both the East and
West neighborhoods. (R. at 126.)
Based on the proceedings before the Board as described above, there is
nothing in the record compelling a conclusion different from that reached by the
Board. Plaintiffs essentially admit this is the case in their reply brief, stating that
"[u]ltimately, [] inconsistencies between the Town's position and the Record
alone may not be legally dispositive of these appeals given the deference afforded
the Board," before going on to argue that the Board's imposition of an allegedly
incorrect legal standard warrants a remand. (PIs.' Rep. Br. 3.) However, as
explained earlier, under the legal standard proposed by Plaintiffs they still
8
would have been required to demonstrate that their properties were overvalued.
Because the Board already made a determination against Plaintiffs on this issue,
even if it were error to require Plaintiffs to attack the methodology of the
Assessor, it was harmless error, as it did not affect the outcome of the Board's
decision. As a result, such an error could provide no basis for remand to the
Board. See M.R. Civ. P. 61.
Therefore, the entry is:
Plaintiffs' Rule BOB appeal is DENIED. The Town of Scarborough
Board of Assessment Review's decision to deny Plaintiffs' requests
for tax abatements is AFFIRMED.
The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference
pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
Dated at Portland, Maine this 22~day of &6 ,2007.
9
Date Filed 7-24-06 CUMBERLAND Docket No. ~A~P~0",--",-6_-",-38=-- •
County cons. w/AP-06-39
Action 80B Appeal
LINEBERGER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH
Ys.
Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney
Bradford Pattershall Esq ROBERT CRAWFORD, ESQ.
PO BOX 17555 P.O. BOX 9729
Portland ME 04112 PORTLAND, ~~INE 04104-5029
Date of
Entry
Date Filed 7-24-06 CUMBERLAND Docket No. _-'-'A"'P_"O'-"6'-----"'3'-'"'9'---c_o_n_s_._w--.:./_A_P_-_0_6_-_3_8_
County
Action
•
80B APPEAl.
JAMES E. LINEBERGER JR TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH
YS.
Plaintiff' s Attorney Defendant's Attorney
BRADFORD PATTERSHALL ESQ ROBERT J. CRAWFORD, ESQ.
PO BOX 17555 P.O. BOX 9729
PORTLAND ME 04112 PORTLAND, MAINE 04104-5029
Date of
l:'ntrv
.... -. __ . -L. _