The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
AROOSTOOK, ss. CARIBOU
DOCKET NO. CARSC-AP
2016--004
TNHABrTANTS OF THE )
TOWN OF EASTON )
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT )
v. )
}
THE COUNTY OF AROOSTOOK and )
Its COMMISSIONERS )
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE )
)
)
)
)
And )
)
)
ELI H. GLICK, et al )
)
PARTIES IN )
INTEREST/APPLICANTS )
)
The Inhabitants of the Town of Easton (hereafter Town) have appealed from
the decision of the The County of Aroostook and its Commissioners
(hereafter Commissioners or County) granting requests for tax abatements.
In 20 J5 the Town conducted a community wide revaluation resulting in a
town-wide increase in valuations and tax assessments. The Applicants are
Eli H. Glick, Uria E. Miller, Jacob E. Miller, Samuel M Swarlzentruber,
Jonas Gingerich and Enos M. Yoder. In February 2016 the Applicants each
made similar applications for abatement of property taxes. (references to the
Record appear as R. at _ ) (R. at 4-18). Prior to their applications the
Applicants had each recently erected similarly constructed large barns. The
Applicants arc of Amish heritage and built their barns in the Amish tradition
of assembling large groups of their people and erecting the structures in a
community effort, i.e. a barn raising. (R. at 217) In their applications for
abatement, the Applicants each similarly asse1ted the Town's valuation was
overstated and explained their varied purposes and uses, and the barns
simplistic construction and limitations. (R. at 4-18). The Town did make
modest adjustments to two Applicant's assessments but otherwise denied the
requests. (R. at 1). The Applicants appealed the Town's denials to the
Commissioners of Aroostook County. (R. at 55-97).
Hearing was held before the Commissioners on June 22, 2016. The
Applicants testified at the hearing, supplementing the information they had
previously provided in their abatement applications. The testimony included
a description of the Amish barn raising tradition, general descriptions of the
barns simplistic design and construction with no modern day amenities. (R.
2
at 217-219). And the AppJicants each described how much material costs
they had into their barns and provided estimates of what labor would have
cost had they in fact had to pay for labor. Id. 1 At the hearing the Applicants
sought an abatement of approximately 50% of the Town's valuation. (R. at
221 ). There was no mathematical showing or formula indicating how they
arrived at that requested amount.
The Town also presented evidence at the hearing, which included the tax
cards(valuations) for the Applicant's properties and also for what the Town
presented as comparable properties. (R. at l 06- 121, 124- 169). In addition
the Town Manager, Jamcs Gardner, and the assessor hired by the Town to
conduct the revaluation, Garnett Robinson, testified. A summary of that
testimony and evidence includes:
-the Town conducted a complete re-evaluation as required by the State
of Maine;
-the assessor looked at all properties and attempted to equalize values;
-the Amish barns are large, discounts were made for material quantity
and allowed for depreciation;
-cost schedules (method) were used for valuation;
I
Some of the Applicants used a $12 per hour estimate for labor cost hut mosl just offered
an estimated lump sum.
3
-sales data of the subject or similar properties was unavailable;
-the properties were classified at "O" quality;
-the barns were assessed as if contractors were hired for construction;
-disharmony exists with local contractors regarding Amish labor rates;
-comparables were provided. (R. at 219-220).
Ultimately the Commissioners found that the Applicant's religion, lifestyle
and comrnunity effort alJowed them to build the large structures in an
economical way, and that the simplistic construction of the barns without
modern conveniences have a mitigating impact on "just value". (R. at 220).
The Commissioners found the Applicants had met their burden to show the
assessments were "manifestly wrong" noting specifically :
-the wide disparity between the Applicant's costs(to construct) and the
municipal valuation of their structures, a significant portion of the disparity
due to the simplicity of the structures;
-there is no evidence on the record lo support the true market value of
these properties or similar structures, the structures are unique to the Amish
and the pool of potential buyers is practically limited to the Amish;
-there is no comparable property on the rel:ol'Cl; the "so-called"
comparables (provided by the Town) include structures with concrete floors,
4
insulation, heat, air conditioning and air exchange units, electricity, running
water, bathrooms, etc. These propcrtics(comparablcs) suppo1t modern
conveniences that the Amish structures do not possess;
-the Applicants material and labor costs were not challenged;
-from a market perspective, the Amish structures arc not attractive to
potential buyers because they don't have the features, convenience and
amenities that most consumers consider essential, they are "only good for
Amish"; These stmctures have reduced utility and market value. (R. at 220
221).
Finding that the Applicants had met their burden, The Commissioners then
addressed the amount of abatement, citing ''If the commissioners think that
the applicant is over-assessed, the applicant is granted such reasonable
abatement as the commissioners think proper." 36 M.R.S.A. 844( I). (R. at
22 l ). The Commissioners noted the Applicants sought an abatement of 50%
of their valuation. Id. The Commissioners farther indicated grading is a
significant variable in valuation but found the Town's testimony to be
material weak pertaining to grading. Id. The Commissioners also found that
the Town's assertion that the barns were valued at a D grade was "not true in
all cases." Id. The Commissioners also indicated that they had requested
5
from the Town more information concerning grading but none was provided.
Id. The Commissioner ultimately ruled " ..we believe a reduction of25%
... is in order ..... it is fair and just. .. These structures are basic, rudimentary
and, in many ways, obsolete. Their demand on the open market is really
quite limited and we believe their value is significantly diminished because
of that." Id. The Commissioner's decision did not provide any mathematical
basis or formula demonstrating how they determined the 25% reduction.
The cou,t notes that the evidence does not include any valuations based on
comparable sales or by the income approach. The valuation approach
utilized by the Town was the cost method, utilizing traditional contractors.
Although the Applicants provided evidence of their material costs with an
estimate for labor, they estimated labor at a rate of $12 per hour or simply
provided a lump sum; the Applicants did not provide evidence of what the
cost to erect their structures would be on the open market in a competitive
process or with contractors. The court also notes that the record indicates the
Commissioners did not view the properties. After the hearing the
Commissioners did ask the Town to provide valuations for the properties at
one letter grade condition lower. (R. at 186-206). But the Town refused Lo
6
2
provide such reduced valuations. Id. No such request was made of the
Applicants and the Applicants did not provide 01· offer such evidence of
what the values of their properties would be if assessed al a condition one or
some level lower than that utilized by the Town. So ultimately no valuation
or data was in evidence or in the record to establish what the valuations of
the properties would be if valued at a condition one level lower than that
utilized by the Town.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In this case, the Superior Court is acting in an appellate capacity. This
requires application of the substantial evidence standard of review, requiring
it to search the entire record to determine whether on the basis of an the
testimony and exhibits before the agency (Commissioners) it could fairly
and reasonably find the facts as it did. Vienna v. Kokernak, 612 A.2d 870,
872 (Me. I 992). That the record contains evidence inconsistent with the
result, or that inconsistent conclusions could be drawn from the evidence,
does not render the commissioner's findings invalid if a reasonable mind
1
The comt interprets the Commissioner's request us asking for evidence of what the
valuations would be if the properties were rated at a condition at the next lower level, in
other words, asking the Town to provide the data for the valuation if the condition was
reduced by one level. The Town refused to provide that data.
7
might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to support the
commissioner's conclusion. Id.
The Maine Constitution requires that "all taxes upon real and personal
estate, assessed by the authority of the State, shall be appo11ioned and
assessed equally according to the just value thereof." Me. Const. art IX, § 8.
Just value means market value. Terfloth v. Town.of Scarborough, 2014 ME
57, i111. Accordingly an assessment must be supported by two factual
findings. First the property must be assessed at its fair market value. Id.
Second, the assessed value must be equitable, that is, the property must be
assessed at a at a relatively uniform rate with comparable property in the
district. Id.
A taxpayer who seeks a tax abatement must prove that the assessed
valuation is "manifestly wrong." Terfloth, ~ 12. An assessment is manifestly
wrong if the taxpayer can demonstrate
( 1) that the taxpayer's property was substantially overvalued and an
injustice resulted from the overvaluation;
(2) that there was unjust discrimination in the valuation of the
property, or
8
(3) that the assessment was fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal. kt~
When a taxpayer appeals from a Town's denial of an abatement, the
Commissioners begin their review of the assessment with the presumption
that the assessor's valuation of the property is valid. Yusem v. Town of
Raymoncl, 200 l ME 61, ~ 8. To overcome the presumption, the taxpayer
seeking an abatement from the Commissioners has the initial burden of
presenting credible, affirmative evidence to meet his or her burden of
persuading the Commissioners that the assessor's valuation was manifestly
wrong. Id.!. If, but only if, the taxpayer meets that burden, the Commissioners
must engage in an independent determination of fair market value. Id.
The judgment that a property's assessed value is in excess ofjust value
requires a comparison between the local assessment and the version of value
that the petitioner fo1· abatement contends is the just one. City 9f Watervi Ile
v. WatervilL~ Homes, 655 A.2d 365, 366, (Me. 1995). If the petitioner for
abatement fails to provide the Board (in this case Commissioners) with
evidence ofjust value that the Board (Commissioners) deems credible, the
Board (Cornmissioners) has no basis in the petitioner's case for comparing
local assessment and the petitioner's version ofjust value. Id._
9
DISCUSSION
Applying the substantiaJ evidence standard of review, there may be
sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's fmding that
the Applicant's had met their burden to prove that the assessment done by
the Town was wrong or high; but the Court cannot find any evidence which
supports the Commissione1·'s decision to award a 25% reduction in the
valuation or evidence of what the "just value" or "fair market value" would
be if not the value established by the Town.
The Town utilized a cost method to assess the Applicant's properties, there
being no viable sales data. The Town's assessment did adjust for material
quantity, depreciation and considered the properties to be lower quality,
typically "D" standard, but for labor it assessed the properties as if
contractors had been hired, (R. at 219). The Applicants presented evidence
describing that their properties did not have the amenities and conveniences
of common modern buildings. And the Applicants presented evidence
describing how they built the properties in their traditional barn raising
fashion, with no cost for labor. But the Applicants only provided "estimates"
10
of what their labor would cost, either providing an estimated lump sum or an
amount assuming $12 per hour per man hours.. (R. at 217-218).
The Commissioners specifically found that there was a wide disparity
between the Applicants' costs and the municipal valuation, due significantly
to the simplicity of the structures, lack of modern amenities and potential
buyers being somewhat limited to Amish. Again, those findings are
supported by the record, and could support a finding that the Town's
assessment was too high. But that is not enough .
In essence, all that the Applicant's successfully proved was that the Town's
assessment was likely high; they did not prove what the assessments of their
buildings should be. Impeachment of the Town's assessment alone does not
fully meet the Applicant's burden. See Watt:rville Homes, at p. 366. ''The
petitioner for an abatement must prove his case. He must show that the
property is overrated. Stated another way, the burden o,lproving that
assessed value is in excess r~fjust value is on the person seeking
abatement ... the taxpayer seeking abatement carries that burden by proving
that the assessed valuation in relation to the just value is manifestly wrong. "
lg_._, citing Sears, Ro~Q\ICk &_~o. v. Ci ty of Presgue Isl~. ct al._, 150 ME
I1
181, I 86 and Delta Chemicals v. Inhabitants of Searsport, 438 A.2d 483,484
(Mc. 1981 ).
The Waterville Homes case is instructive to the case at hand. In that case,
the State Board of Tax Review, reviewing an abatement request that had
been denied by the city assessor, impliedly found that the City's assessment
was wrong. The petitioner's case had largely focused on impeaching the
City's assessment, but presented umeager" evidence of value. Id. The Board
found the City's assessment was wrong, but apparently also rejected the
petitioner's evidence of value, so instead arrived at its own judgment of
value. On appeal by the City, the Superior Court vacated the Board's
decision, which was upheld on appeal to the Law Court. Id.
In this case, the Applicant's gave "estimates" of labor costs, some using $12
per hour for manhours while others provided an estimated lump sum. And in
their applications they indicated the amount of abatement being requested.
(R. at 4-18). But the Applicant's did not present actual evidence of"just
valuation". They perhaps successfully impeached the Town's assessment by
providing evidence of the buildings simplistic design and construction, and
also evidence of their very modest construction cost. But this is not proof of
12
"just value". Instead of presenting evidence of"just value" the Applicants
on Iy stated what amount or level of abatement they sought, " ..approximately
50%.." (R. at 221 ). It is noted that even the sum of the material costs and
estimated labor costs provided by the Applicants does not resemble the tax
valuations requested after a 50% abatement. There is simply no
mathematical showing or formula or other evidence establishing how the
Applicants arrived at the abatements !'equested. In the end, the court cannot
find anywhere in the record where the Applicants provided evidence ofjust
value.
Indeed, the Commissioners did not even accept the Applicant's proposal of a
50% reduction. Instead, the Commissioners awarded a reduction of 25%,
stating " .. it is an amount that is fair and just to the community as a whole."
There is no evidence or showing in the record to suppo1t a 25% reduction or
showing how the Commissioners determined this was an appropriate
amount, i.e. no math, no formula. In other words, with no evidence in the
record ofjust value, the Commissioners rejected the Applicant's suggested
amount and exercised its own judgment of an abatement amount, with no
showing how they arrived at that amount. The Commissioners made no
findings ofjust value or fair market value.
13
Although the Applicant's may have produced suHicient evidence that the
Town's assessment was high, they did not present actual evidence ofjust
value or fair market value. The Applicant's produced evidence of the unique
and unusual circumstances employed to erect lhese buildings with minimal
cost, but that by itself is not evidence of just value or fair market value. In
fact, in its decision, the Commissioners found "There is no evidence on the
record to support the true market value of these properties or similar
structures in the community." (R. at 220). As previously noted, the
Commissioner's rejected the requested abatement amount, indicative that
there was insuflicient evidence to support such amounts, then exercised its
own judgment. But as stated in Waterville Hom~ If the petitioner for
abatement fails to provide the Board ·with evidence o,fjust value that the
Board deems credible, the Board has no basis in the petitioner's case.for
comparing the local assessment and the petitioner's version ofjust value. If
the Board rejects the petitioner's evidence ..... and then remedies the
deficiencies in the petitioner's proof by making its own calculation o.{Just
value independently o_/j1etitioner 's proof, the Board relieves the petitioner of
its burden lo prove that the assessed valuation in relation to the just value is
manifestly ·wrong. Watervillc _Homcs, p. 366.
14
That is the result here. The Applicants failed to meet their burden of
producing evidence of their prnperties just value or fair market value. It was
el'l'or for the Commissioners to remedy the Applicants deficiencies in their
proof and exercise its own judgment of an abatement amount with no
supporting evidence in the record. The Town's appeal is granted. The
Commissioner's decision is hereby vacated and the decision of the
Municipal assessor is reinstated .
The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant
to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).
i:l
Date(J w ""9"
,(/
;I . 2017
Justice, Superior Court
15
Appeal CARSC-AP-2016-004
Date 08/12/2016 Docket No. CARSC-AP-2016-004
Aroostook
Filed
Countv
Action 808
Plaintiff Inhabitants of the Town of Defendant County of Aroostook
Easton Paul). Adams, Commissioner
Paul J. Underwood,
Commissioner
Eli Glick
vs.
Ul'ia Miller
Jacob Miller
Samuel Swartzentruber
Jonas Miller
Enos Yoder
Attorney Richard Currier Attorney John Wall for Paul Adams and
Paul Underwood
Date of Entry
08/22/2016 Complaint med by Atty Currier on 08/12/2016.
08/26/2016 Summons served on Douglas Beaulier on 08/17/2016 and filed on
08/23/2016.
08/26/2016. Summons served on Enos Yoder on 08/18/2016 and filed on
08/23/2016.
08/26/2016 Summons served on Uria Miller, Samuel Swartzentruber, Eli Glick,
Jacob Miller, and Jonas Gingerich on 08/18/2016 and filed on
08/23/2016.
08/26/2016 Notice and Briefing Schedule issued to all parties on 08/26/201.6.
09/15/2016 Answer and Affirmative Defenses (County of Aroostook and
Commissioners Paul J. Adams and Paul J. Underwood) by Atty Wall
filed on 09/02/2016.
09/26/2016 Consented to motion for enlargement of time signed by Justice
Stewart on 09/26/2016.
10/04/2016 Record on Appeal filed by Atty Currier on 10/03/2016.
10/28/2016 Briefof Pit/Appellant filed on 10/21/2016 by Atty. Currier.
11/18/2016 Def/Appellees unopposed motion for enlargement of time filed by
Atty. John Wall on 11/14/2016.
11/23/2016 Order granting Defendant/ Appellees County of Aroostook and
Commissioners Paul J /\dams and Paul J Underwood's Unopposed
Motion for Enlargement of Time signed by Justice Harold Stewart on
11/21/2016.
Appeal CARSC-AP-2016-004
12/05/2016 Defendants County of Aroostook and Commissioners Paul J. Adams
and Paul J. Underwood's Rule 808 Brief flied by atty John Wall on
12/02/2016.
12/14/2016 Letter from Richard Currier, F.sq. informing the court that the Town of
Easton does not intend to file a Reply Brief and requesting a hearing
or conference filed 12/14/2016.
01/06/2017 Justice Harold Stewart's Decision Entered 01/03/2017. "The town's
appeal is granted. The Commissioner's decision is hereby vacated and
the decision of the Municipal assessor ls reinstated."