Fowski v. City of Biddeford

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION

YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-09-032

C7AB - YO~~ :3 /~LI/~OID

WALTER J. FOWSKI and

NANCY C. FOWSKI,

Plaintiffs

v. ORDER

CITY OF BIDDEFORD,

BOARD OF ASSESSlIIENT REVIEW,

Defendant

Walter J. Fowski and Nancy C. Fowski appeal from the City of Biddeford's Board

of Assessments Review's decision to deny their tax abatement appeal. Following

hearing and review of the record, the appeal is Denied.

BACKGROUND

The Fowskis own residential oceanfront property at 35 Fortunes Rocks Road in

the Fortunes Rocks neighborhood of Biddeford, Maine. This property is identified as

Lot 20 on Tax Map 63. (R. at C9.) The Tax Map shows the lot to have one hundred feet

of road frontage, narrowing to eighty-five feet of frontage along the beach and water.

(R. at C9.) The Tax Map does not show the lot continuing past this line. (R. at C9).

However, a 1994 retracement survey prepared from a 1968 plan and 1987 survey data

shows the lot having one hundred feet of frontage along the beach, narrowing to

approximately twenty-one feet of riparian frontage at the mean high water level. (R. at

BI4.) A deeded right-of-way crosses the property. (R. at D43.) A second right-of-way

crosses a neighboring lot. (R. at B7.)

The City of Biddeford completed a city-wide property revaluation for tax-year

2007, with a cut-off date of April 1, 2007. (R. at Cl.) For the April 1, 2007 assessment

date, the City Assessor calculated each lot's assessed value by applying the following

formula:

Acreage (s.f.) x Unit Price [i.e. appraised value] x Site Index multiplier

x Condition Factor multiplier x Neighborhood multiplier = Land Value

[i.e. assessed value].

(R. at D26.) The Assessor worked with the City's revaluation company to appraise

oceanfront property by using nine oceanfront property sales that occurred in Biddeford

between April 2004 and January 2007. (R. at D26-27.) This list included the Fowskis'

purchase of 35 Fortunes Rocks Road, and "showed a mean average land sale price of

$1,158,713.11 for oceanfront sale[s]." (R. at D26.)

All oceanfront property was assigned the same Site Index multiplier 7.15, and

"all ocean influence property ... was assigned a Neighborhood Code multiplier of 2.5."

(R. at D27.) These multipliers were developed through sales analyses of similarly

grouped properties. (R. at D27.) The Assessor used the Condition Factor to reflect site-

specific adjustments to a property's land value "such as lot size, shared access drives,

recorded rights of way across a property, erosion or wetlands .... For a property without

any site specific adjustments, a Condition Factor of 1 was assigned to the property." (R.

at D27.)

Under the April 1, 2007 assessment date, the Fowskis' property's appraised value

was $1,094,200, of which $932,000 was apportioned to land and $162,200 was

apportioned to buildings. (R. at D2.) Its assessed value was $995,700, of which $848,100

was apportioned to the land and $147,600 was apportioned to the building. (R. at D26.)

2

This assessment reflected a 5% downward adjustment to reflect the right-of-way across

the Fowskis' lot, i.e. the Fowskis' condition factor was 0.95. (R. at D27.) The 2007 values

were carried over into the 2008 and 2009 tax years. (R. at D26, F2.)

On February 19, 2009, the Fowskis applied for a property tax abatement for the

2008 tax year. (R. at B4.) Their application listed "fair market value, equality with other

property, [and] shape and traffic considerations." (R. at B4.) Where the application asks

what the Fowskis believe the fair market value of the property to be, they wrote "about

$900,00017". (R. at B4.) The Assessor denied the application on March 13, 2009, and the

Fowskis appealed to the Board of Assessment Review. (R. at B1, B17.)

The Fowskis argued to the Board that their property had not been assessed

according to its fair market value or in an equitable manner. (R. at Bl.) They requested

that their property's appraised land value be reduced, and/ or their Condition Factor be

adjusted downward. (R. at B6-7.) Mr. Fowski began his argument supporting a lowered

land valuation by attempting to show that properties in other neighborhoods were

being systematically appraised at lower levels than property in the Fortunes Rocks

neighborhood. (R. at D8, E5-6.) He did this by analyzing the nine oceanfront properties

the Assessor used to determine the mean average oceanfront sales price for the 2007

revaluation. (R. at D8.)

Mr. Fowski's analysis began with the recorded sale price for each property, all of

which were sold between 2004 and 2007. (R. at D8.) For each property, he subtracted

the 2006 appraised value of the buildings from the recorded sale price. (R. at D8; see

C13, D36, D38.) Mr. Fowski labeled the resulting difference as the "Residual Land

Value." (R. at D8.) He then compared this "Residual Land Value" to the Assessors

2008-2009 appraised land value to find the ratio between the two. (R. at D8.) Comparing

the resulting ratios, Mr. Fowski claims that in 2008-2009 oceanfront land in the Fortunes

3

Rocks neighborhood was appraised at an average 95% of its "Residual Land Value,"

while land in other neighborhoods was appraised at 77%.1 (R. at D8). According to Mr.

Fowski, this translated into a "23% tax penalty for [Fortunes Rocks] beachfront owners.

(R. at D8.) Only two of the nine properties in the list were actually located in Fortunes

Rocks. (R. at D8.)

Mr. Fowski performed a separate, similar analysis of four properties sold in the

latter half of 2007. (R. at D12.) Two of the properties were oceanfront lots located in the

Fortunes Rocks neighborhood, and two were non-oceanfront lots from other coastal

neighborhoods. (R. at D12.) Mr. Fowski subtracted the Assessor's current appraised

building value from the 2007 sale price. (R. at D12; see B23.) He labeled the difference as

the "Real Lot Value." (R. at D12.) He then compared this "Real Lot Value" to the

Assessor's current appraised land value to establish in his view the percentage by

which the Assessor was over- or under-valuing the land. (R. at D12.) Mr. Fowski also

compared the properties' sale prices to their current total appraised values to determine

how much they were over- or under-valued. (R. at D12.)

Using this analysis, Mr. Fowski argued that Fortunes Rocks' properties' land

were appraised at an average of 119% of the "Real Lot Value," and that the properties

were appraised at an average of 116% their sale prices overall. (R. at D12.) In contrast,

Mr. Fowski claimed that the non-oceanfront land in other neighborhoods was appraised

at 68% of its "Real Lot Value," and the properties overall were appraised at 75% their

sale prices. (R. at D12.) Mr. Fowski asserted that this translated "into a 75% tax penalty

for [Fortunes Rocks] beachfront owners of land of equal value." (R. at D12.) He

The record shows that the 2008-2009 appraised building values were not identical to the

2006 values used by Mr. Fowski. (R. at DB; see C13, 036, D3B.) In at least one case the building

values had doubled. (R. at 039.)

4

apparently repeated this exercise with all single-family home sales that occurred in

Biddeford between April 1, 2007 and March 31,2008. (R. at Dl~I1.)

From his calculations, Mr. Fowski essentially made two arguments. First he

claimed that he was owed a 16% reduction in his land's appraised value. (R. at DI3.) He

arrived at this number by reasoning that since the 2007 sales data shows land in

Fortunes Rocks was appraised at approximately 116% of its "Real Lot Value," the over­

appraisal could be remedied by being reduced 16%, i.e. the "Real Lot Value" was on

average 84% of the appraised land value. (See R. at DI2.) His second argument was that

his ratios revealed that the property-tax assessment system in Biddeford "necessarily

results in unequal apportionment." (R. at D9, DI2.) Mr. Fowski did not produce any

current independent appraisal of his property or other evidence of its fair market value.

He also did not address any factor that goes into the assessed-value calculation other

than the appraised land values.

In addition to requesting a reduction in the appraised value of his land, Mr.

Fowski argued that the Condition Factor of his property should be adjusted downward.

(R. at D21-23.) The Fowskis currently receive a 5% reduction in the assessed value of

their property to reflect the right-of-way in their deed. (R. at £23.) Mr. Fowski

contended that he should receive an additional 5% reduction for the rights-of-way

adjacent to his property and the "nuisance traffic" they bring in the summer. (R. at £23­

24.) He also requested a further 5% reduction for the shape of his lot. (R. at £17.)

Mr. Fowski pointed to another oceanfront lot in Biddeford that had received a

5% reduction for "shape." (R. at B19, £17.) This other lot, identified as lot 62-16, is

shown on the Tax Map as having sixty-five feet of road frontage, narrowing to

somewhat less than forty feet of frontage along the beach and water. (R. at CI2.) The

deed to lot 62-16 reflects that it has approximately sixty-five feet of road frontage and

5

approximately thirty-six feet of ocean frontage. (R. at B26-28, E16.) Though Mr.

Fowski's lot has one hundred feet of road frontage and eighty-five feet of beach

frontage on the Tax Map, he argued that his deed and retracement survey show his lot

continuing past the Tax Map boundary and narrowing to twenty-one feet of ocean

frontage. (R. at B 14, C9, E16.) Turning again to ratios, Mr. Fowski contended that while

lot 62-16 had a water-to-road ratio of 56%, his lot had a ratio of 21%. (R. at E17.) Mr.

Fowski argued that since he has less water frontage than lot 62-16, with an even more

severe taper, it would be unreasonably and irrationally discriminatory to deny him a

similar shape reduction in his property assessment. (R. at E17-18.)

The City Assessor disagreed with Mr. Fowski's arguments and attempted to

rebut each of his points. The Assessor started from the position that Biddeford's City

Charter precludes him from considering any property sales that took place after the last

city-wide revaluation, until a new revaluation is performed. 2 (R. at C2, E27.) Turning to

Mr. Fowski's calculations, the Assessor found that the city-wide analysis was fatally

flawed because Mr. Fowski did not adjust for differences in location, style, site index,

and other factors relevant to appraisal and assessment. (R. at C2.) This failure to

recognize multiple variables carried over into Mr. Fowski's other two analyses, and

highlighted another methodological mistake: Mr. Fowski's charts all attempt to

compare appraised value to sale price, when the relevant legal consideration compares

assessed value to sale price. (R. at E29-30, E32-33.) The Assessor argued that the sales

prices of oceanfront property in Biddeford had held steady or increased despite the

2 The Charter was amended in 2004 to read: "Property within the City shall be revaluated

by a total city-wide assessment, which includes all residential and commercial properties."

Biddeford, Me., Charter art. X, § 5. The Assessor interpreted this as a prohibition on "spot

assessing." (R. at E27.)

6

downward trend in other parts of the country, and that the assessed values were all

near or under the sale prices. (R. at E32.)

Addressing Mr. Fowski's comparison of two 2007 sales in Fortunes Rocks to two

sales elsewhere, the Assessor noted that the two properties outside of Fortunes Rocks

were not oceanfront. (R. at E29.) The Assessor also criticized Mr. Fowski for excluding

other oceanfront property sales that occurred in Fortunes Rocks in 2007. (R. at E28.) The

sale prices in these transactions were $1,188,267, and $1,087,500.3 (R. at D8, E28). The

tWo properties Mr. Fowski did use were criticized as unusual situations where the

buildings had been in poor condition, or the lot configurations were not comparable to

Mr. Fowski's land. (R. at E32-33.) Taken together, the Assessor believed that the 2007

sales data supported valuations of over $1,000,000 for Fortunes Rocks oceanfront

properties. (R. at E28.)

Addressing the Fowskis' Condition Factor, the Assessor defended maintaining it

at 0.95 to reflect only the right-of-way in their deed. (R. at C3, E35.) The Assessor

testified that properties subject to rights-of-way receive discounts, but those discounts

to not apply to neighbors. (R. at E35, E37.) Foot-traffic on the rights-of-way and the

beach were deemed ordinary inconveniences common to oceanfront property

everywhere. (R. at E35.) In this case, the Assessor testified that the direct impact of the

deeded rights-of-way was lessened by a public right-of-way and public beach less than

one-quarter mile from the Fowskis' property, and he noted the general public easement

to portions of the shore. (R. at E37.) The Assessor contended that absent a nuisance

effect beyond ordinary beach traffic, the Fowskis were not entitled to a reduction for the

rights-of-way across their neighbor's property. (R. at E35-36.)

3 These sales were among the nine used to determine the mean average sale price of

oceanfront property in Biddeford. (R. at D6, D8.)

7

The Assessor also argued that the Fowskis were not entitled to a reduction for

the shape of their lot because the Tax Map showed their lot with one hundred feet of

road frontage and eighty-five feet of ocean frontage. (R. at C9, E34.) The Assessor

criticized the accuracy of the survey they produced showing otherwise, and in the

alternative argued that the taper of the Fowskis' lot did not adversely affect them such

as to justify a 5% reduction in their assessment. (R. at E34, E36.) Comparing the

Fowskis' lot to lot 62-16, which did receive a reduction for shape, the Assessor noted

that lot 62-16's dimensions were much smaller and narrower on the Tax Map,

particularly at the road. (C9, C12, E34-36.) Given the size disparity, the Assessor argued

that the Fowskis were not impacted in the same way as the owners of lot 62-16, and so

did not merit the reduction. (R. at E36-37.)

The Board unanimously denied the Fowskis abatement request after hearing and

taking evidence from Mr. Fowski and the City Assessor at its June 25,2009 meeting. (R.

at E1, E44-45.) The minutes show that the Board passed the following two motions:

To Deny the appeal for an abatement on a claim that there hasn't been

a substantial overvaluation[,]

and

To Deny the appeal because the Fowskis have not shown that their

assessment has not been performed in an equitable manner.

(R. at F3.) Before adjourning, the Board decided to meet again "to consider the

acceptance of the written decision in the case of the Fowskis' appeal." (R. at E45, F4.)

The Board met again on July 1, 2009, and unanimously adopted a comprehensive

vyritten decision with detailed findings of fact. (R. at F5, Gl-4.) After summarizing the

Fowskis' and City Assessor's arguments, the Board found

that the Assessor. ..appropriately used nine oceanfront sales to develop

the assessed value of the Fowski property, such that the property has

not been shown to be overvalued. The Board did not find the Fowskis'

8

sales ratio analysis that compared "appraised values" to sales prices to

be persuasive.

... The Board agreed that the Assessor used the same

methodology consistently to assess Fortunes Rocks oceanfront

properties ....The Assessor appropriately used a 5% downward

adjustment for the right of way on the Fowski property and no further

adjustments for shape / frontage at water's edge or rights of way on an

abutter's property were warranted ....

Based on the the foregoing, the Board [found] that the Fowskis

failed to prove that the assessed valuation of their property is

manifestly wrong: the Fowkis failed to provide evidence that their

property was substantially overvalued or that the Assessors's

methodology necessarily resulted in unjust discrimination of the

Fowski property in comparison to similarly situated properties.

(R. at G3-4.) The Board therefore denied the Fowskis' request for abatement. (R. at G4.)

The Fowskis now bring this 80B appeal, seeking to overturn the Board's decision.

DISCUSSION

"Article 9, section 8 of the Maine Constitutions requires that 'all taxes upon real and

personal estate ... shall be apportioned and assessed equally, according to the just value

thereof.'" City of Biddeford v. Adams, 1999 ME 49, <[ 14, 727 A.2d 346, 349 (emphasis

added). '''Just value' is the equivalent of 'market value.'" Muirgen Props., Inc. v. Town of

Boothbay, 663 A.2d 55,58 (Me. 1995) (quoting Shawmut Inn v. Town of Kennebunkport, 428

A.2d 384,' 389 (Me. 1981) (internal quotations omitted). "A town's assessment is

presumed valid and the taxpayer must prove it is manifestly wrong." Adams, 1999 ME

49, <[ 13, 727 A.2d at 349. To show that an assessment is manifestly wrong, "a taxpayer

must prove that one of three situations exists:

(1) 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;

9

(2) There was unjust discrimination;

or

(3) The Assessment was fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal.

Muirgen Props., Inc., 663 A.2d at 58.

On appeal from the Board of Assessment Review, this Court reviews the Board's

"decision for abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial

evidence in the record." Muirgen Props. Inc., 663 A.2d at 58. The Court "will vacate the

Commissioners' conclusion that the taxpayer failed to meet this burden 'only if the

record compels a contrary conclusion to the exclusion of any other inference."' Yusum v.

Town of Raymond, 2001 ME 61, <JI 9, 769 A.2d 865, 870 (quoting Weekley v. Town of

Scarborough, 676 A.2d 932, 934 (Me. 1996)) (internal quotations omitted).

Mr. Fowski now contends that his analyses constituted compelling evidence

showing both that his land was substantially overvalued and that the City's method of

assessment necessarily results in unjust discrimination. He also argues that denying his

property assessment a 10% reduction for the adjacent rights-of-way and the lot's shape

is arbitrary, capricious, and unjustly discriminatory. The City of Biddeford argues that

the Board of Assessment Review's decision is legally correct and supported by

substantial evidence on the record.

1. Substantial Overvaluation

As a preliminary matter, the Court should note that the Board of Assessment

Review did not refuse to consider sales that occurred after April I, 2007, when making

their decision. (See R. at GI-4.) Thus, the issue of whether the City Assessor can legally

refuse to consider new sales data that occurs between city-wide revaluations is not

before the Court. However, given the Legislative instruction that assessors "shall

10

ascertain as nearly as may be the nature, amount and value as of the first day of each

April of the real estate and personal property subject to be taxed," it seems unlikely that

the City of Biddeford could prevent its Assessor from using current data. 36 M.R.S.A.

§ 708; see Moser v. Town of Phippsburg, 553 A.2d 1249, 1250 (Me. 1989) ("Townwide

revaluations are perhaps the best method of maintaining equal apportionment .... But

assessors are not precluded from undertaking adjustments . . . between townwide

revaluations./I). The Court does not need to reach the question of preemption or

interpretation of Biddeford's City Charter at this time.

An assessor's valuation is presumed valid. Yusum, 2001 ME 61, 'IT 8, 769 A.2d at

869-70. To show that the Assessor "substantially overvalued the property, the taxpayer

has to present credible evidence of its value." Northeast Empire P'Ship # 2 v. Town of

Ashland, 2003 ME 28, 'IT 7, 818 A.2d 1021, 1024 (citing Yusum, 2001 ME 61, 'IT 13, 769 A.2d

at 871-72). Mr. Fowski argues that his analysis shows that the lands of two properties

sold in his neighborhood in 2007 were subsequently appraised at 116% of what he

believes to be their "Real Lot Value./I He believes that this constitutes compelling

evidence that his land has likewise been over-appraised at 116% of its fair value, and

thus its current appraised value should be reduced by 16%.

One difficulty with Mr. Fowski's analysis is that it assumes a necessary

uniformity among properties in his neighborhood. Contrary to Mr. Fowski's argument,

his sample of two 2007 sales does not provide compelling evidence of his property's

value. His analytical method also dubiously ascribes all devaluation to land rather than

buildings by accepting the Assessor's appraised building values and subtracting them

from sale price to challenge the Assessor's appraised land value. Most importantly, Mr.

Fowski confuses the legal significance of appraised and assessed values.

11

Maine's Constitution requires that property be "assessed equally according to the

just value thereof." Me. Const. art IX § 8 (emphasis added); see Chase v. Town of

Machiasport, 1998 ME 260, '[ 11, 721 A.2d 636, 640 ("[P]roperty must be assessed at its

fair market value."). Thus, to determine that the Fowskis' lot is substantially

overvalued, the Board "would have to compare the assessed value of the lot with a

value demonstrated by [the Fowskis] to more accurately reflect a fair and just value."

Yusum, 2001 ME 61, '[ 13, 769 A.2d at 871.

The record shows that on April I, 2008, the assessed value of the Fowskis'

property was $995,700. (R. at G1.) Mr. Fowski presented the Board with evidence

showing that the mean average sale price for oceanfront property in Biddeford between

2006 and 2007 was $1,158,713.11. (R. at D6, G1.) His evidence also reflected that the

average sale price of oceanfront property in 2007 only was $1,025,191.75, with prices

being higher earlier in that year. (R. at D8, D12.) The City Assessor testified that the

properties sold at lower prices had unique factors making them a poor representative

sample, and that oceanfront property values had held steady or were increasing. (R. at

E32-33, G2-3.) Mr. Fowski did not provide a professional appraisal or any other

evidence of the current fair market value of his own property. He also failed to analyze

the comparative assessed values of properties in Biddeford, or account for assessment

factors other than appraised value.

The record supports the Board of Assessment Review's determination that that

the Fowskis failed to produce credible and persuasive evidence to meet their burden.

Mr. Fowski's sales ratio analysis does not compel this Court to find otherwise.

2. Unjust Discrimination

Mr. Fowski contends that the same evidence he presented to prove substantial

overvaluation also shows that he has been unjustly discriminated against. "[T]axpayers

12

can prove discrimination only if they show that the assessor's system necessarily results

in unequal apportionment." Ram's Head Partners, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 2003 ME

131, ~ 10, 834 A.2d 916, 919 (quoting City of Biddeford v. Adams, 1999 ME 49, ~ 14, 727

A.2d 346, 349) (quotations omitted). "The constitutional requirement is the seasonable

attainment of a rough equality in tax treatment of similarly situated property owners."

ld. (quoting Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co.v. County Comm'n, 488 U.s. 336, 345 (1989))

(quotations omitted). While "[t]he undervaluation of one set of similarly situated

properties can support a finding of unjust discrimination . . . 'sporadic differences in

valuations,' or 'mere errors of judgment on the part of the assessors' do no necessarily

establish unjust discrimination." ld. ~ 11, 834 A.2d at 919 (quoting Kittery Elee. Light Co.

v. Assessors of the Town of Kittery, 219 A.2d 728, 740 (Me. 1966)) (internal citations

omitted).

In the past, the Law Court has found unjust discrimination where an "assessor

had arbitrarily granted a discount to one neighborhood based on his 'gut feeling,'" and

cited instances where an assessor "ignored recent sales because he thought the buyers

were paying too much." ld. ~ 13, 834 A.2d at 920 (citing Adams, 1999 ME 49, ~ 3, 727

A.2d at 348; State ex reI. Levine v. Bd. of Review, 528 N.W.2d 424, 428 (Wis. 1995)). While

the Law Court ultimately remanded the dispute in Ram's Head Partners, LLC v. Town of

Cape Elizabeth for further findings of fact, it noted that the taxpayer theoretically could

"prove discrimination by showing that the neighboring ... lots [were] assessed at

drastically lower valuations; that there [were] no distinctions between the properties

that justify the disparity; and that any rationale offered by the Town for the lower

valuation [was] unfounded or arbitrary." ld. ~ 12, 834 A.2d at 920.

The Fowskis claim that the City of Biddeford's assessment method necessarily

results in unjust discrimination because Mr. Fowski's calculations indicate that the

13

Assessor regularly appraises land in Fortunes Rocks at a higher value than land in other

oceanfront neighborhoods. The Fowski's did not compare the assessed values of

properties in different oceanfront neighborhoods, not did they attempt to explain or

adjust for other possible factors such as lot sizes or increases in the appraised values of

buildings since the properties' sales dates. (Compare R. at D8 with R. at D38.) The Board

was not convinced that correlation equaled causation in this case, and found that the

assessment formula was applied fairly and consistently to all properties in the Fortunes

Rocks neighborhood and oceanfront properties in Biddeford generally. (R. at G4.) The

Board's conclusion is supported by the City Assessor's testimony and the property

cards submitted by the Fowskis. The Board rationally concluded that the Fowskis failed

to show that the City's methodology necessarily results in unequal apportionment

between similarly situated properties.

3. The Discount Factor

In addition to disputing the appraised value of their land, the Fowskis argue that

their property is overvalued because the City has failed to provide them with certain

discounts for allegedly adverse conditions inherent in their lot. They argue that this

deprivation of discounts is arbitrary, capricious, and unjustly discriminatory. While

they already receive a 5% discount for a right-of-way contained in their deed, they seek

additional 5% discounts for their lot's shape and for rights-of-way contained in their

neighbor's deeds.

The City Assessor testified that while one other lot in Biddeford did receive a

discount due to its shape, the discounted lot was substantially different than the

Fowskis' lot. Using the Tax Maps as the standard for comparison, the Assessor showed

that the discounted lot has sixty-five feet of road frontage and thirty-six feet of beach

frontage, while the Fowskis' lot has one hundred feet of road frontage and eighty-five

14

feet of beach frontage. (R. at B26-28, EI6.) The Assessor also testified that it was

customary for people to use rights-of-way to access and use parts of the beach under

private ownership, and such traffic along neighboring land did not alone constitute a

nuisance justifying an additional 5% assessment reduction. (R. at F3.)

The Board agreed with the Assessor and found that the Fowskis were not

entitled to further reductions in the Condition Factor of their property assessment. (R. at

G4.) While reasonable minds might be able to draw inconsistent conclusions from the

record, this alone does not invalidate the Board's findings. Town of Vienna v. Kokernak,

612 A.2d 870, 872 (Me. 1992). The Board's decision is rational and supported by

substantial evidence in the record.

CONCLUSION

The Fowskis' appeal is denied and the Board of Assessment Review's decision js

affirmed.

Dated: March 24, 2010

PLAINTIFFS PRO SE

Walter J. Fowski

Nancy C. Fowski

104 Vista Drive

Easton CT 06612

DEFENDANT"S ATTORNEY

SALLY J. DAGGETT, ESQ.

JENSEN BAIRD ET AL

PO BOX 4510

PORTLAND ME 04112

15