The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-17-009
LUKE CONTE,
Plaintiff
v. ORDER
TOWN OF YORK,
Defendant
This matter was heard with respect to an SOB appeal filed by Mr. Conte. At issue
relates to the assessed value on his property located in York, Maine. As the Town
correctly identifies the burden of proof is upon Mr. Conte to prove that the assessed value
on his property is manifestly wrong. Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough, 2014 ME 57.
The Court's role in this review is to only vacate the Board of Assessment Review's
decision if it is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, or if the record compels
a different conclusion to the exclusion of any other reasonable decision.
A review of the record indicates that Mr. Conte purchased the property on
December 29, 2015 for $552,250, which was within $150 of the April 1, 2016 assessed value
of $552,400. The abatement sought by Mr. Conte is for approximately $16,400 less than
the $552,400 assessed value which, as the Town mathematically notes, is a reduction of
less than 10%.
1
Real Estate value appraisal and assessment is not an exact science. It is based
typically on evaluations of comparable properties. This is well recognized both in the
history of expert testimony presented to this Court in which real estate appraisers
typically testify that there is a 10% to 15% range of error in their calculations, which
ultimately has been codified at 36 M.R.S. §848-A, which indicates that in any proceedings
related to a protested assessment, it is sufficient defense of the assessment that it is
accurate within reasonable limits of practicality except when a proven deviation of 10%
or more from the relevant assessment ratio of the municipality or primary assessing area
exists.
The Court concludes that the assessed value that Mr. Conte has not established
that the assessed value on his property is manifestly wrong, while his assessment
technique revealed a number that was approximately 3% less than the number assessed
by the Town. The Court cannot conclude that that evidence compels a contrary
conclusion to the exclusion of any other inference which is the standard for review
required by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is denied.
The Clerk may incorporate this order by reference on the docket.
Dated: October ~2017
John H. O'Neil, Jr.
Justice, Superior Court
ENTERED ON THE DOCKET ON:
2