The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
AROOSTOOK, SS. Caribou
Docket No. CARSC-AP-2022-002
CASSIDY HOLDINGS, LLC )
)
Appellant, )
)
)
V. ) DECISION AND ORDER
)
AROOSTOOK COUNTY )
COMMISSIONERS, )
)
Appellee )
and )
)
CITY OF CARIBOU, )
)
Party-in-interest )
)
This matter involves the appeal of the decision of the Aroostook County
Commissioners dismissing the appeal of the abatement request of Cassidy Holdings,
LLC, due to the Commissioners' determination that they lacked jurisdiction to consider
the matter. The parties have stipulated to the following1 :
"1. The property subject to this appeal is nonresidential property with an
equalized municipal valuation of $1,000,000 or greater.
2. The Aroostook County Commissioners dismissed Cassidy Holdings, LLC's
appeal for lack of jurisdiction finding that the State Board of Property Tax Review
has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over appeal involving nonresidential
1 It is not disputed that the City of Caribou does not have a board of assessment review.
property with an equalized municipal valuation of $1,000,000 or greater pursuant
to 36 M.R.S.A. §844(2) and §843."
The issue presented to the court is narrow: Do the Aroostook County
Commissioners have concurrent jurisdiction with the State Board of Property Tax Review
to consider an appeal related to an abatement request regarding nonresidential real estate
situated in Caribou having an equalized municipal valuation of $1,000,000 or greater?
DISCUSSION
Rule SOB provides for review of goverrn11ental action. M.R. Civ. P. SOB. Appeals
to the Superior Court pursuant to Rule SOB must be provided by statute or otherwise. Id
at SOB(a). Section 844 of Title 36 provides that "if the assessors or the municipal officers
refuse to make the abatement asked for, the applicant may apply to the county
commissioners" for relief. 36 M.R.S. §844(1). "Either party may appeal from the decision
of the county corrunissioners to the Superior Court, in accordance with the Maine Rules
of Civil Procedure, Rule SOB." Id. Review is limited to the Record unless a motion for trial
of facts is granted. See M.R. Civ. P. 80B(d) and (j). The court reviews the decision of the
county commissioners for "an abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported
by substantial evidence in the record." Vienna v. Kokernak, 612 A.2d 870, 872 (Me. 1992).
When interpreting a statute, the court must "look first to ilie plain meaning in
order to discern legislative intent, viewing the relevant provision in the context of the
entire statutory scheme to generate a harmonious result." State v. Beeler, 2022 ME 47, Pl2,
281 A.3d 637, 645 (quoting, State v. Tozier, 2015 ME 57, 'l[ 6, 115 A.3d 1240). By design,
Section 844 addresses appeals of abatement requests to county commissioners where the
municipality or primary assessing area has not adopted a board of assessment review.
Subsection 2 states:
"Notwithstanding subsection 1, the applicant may appeal the decision of the
assessors or the municipal officers on a request for abatement with respect to
nonresidential property or properties having an equalized municipal valuation of
$1,000,000 or greater, either separately or in the aggregate, to the State Board of
Property Tax Review within 60 days after notice of the decision from which the
appeal is taken or after the application is deemed to be denied. If the State Board
of Property Tax Review determines that the applicant is over-assessed, it shall
grant such reasonable abatement as it determines proper. For the purposes of this
subsection, "nonresidential property" means property that is used primarily for
commercial, industrial or business purposes, excluding unimproved land that is
not associated with a commercial, industrial or business use."
36 M.R.S. § 844(2).
Notwithstanding means "despite." https://www.merriam
webs/er.com/dictionary/notwithstanding; see also, Black's Law Dictionary 823 (11th ed. 2019)
(defining "notwithstanding" as "[d]espite" or "in spite of"). The use of the phrase
"notwithstanding subsection 1" at the beginning of the subsection indicates that the
legislature intended for an applicant for an abatement regarding nonresidential property
of $1,000,000 or greater to have the option to apply to the county commissioners or appeal
to the State Board of Property Tax Review. Otherwise, the legislature would have simply
started that subsection with the phrase "with regard to nonresidential property or
properties with an equalized municipal valuation of $1,000,000 or greater ..." as in
Section 843. See, Ellen M. Leach Mem. Home v. City of Brewer, 1998 ME 118, 711 A.2d 149
(Holding that the congregate care facility was nonresidential property [valued at
$1,000,000 or greater] and, therefore, under Section 843 the state board had initial
jurisdiction pursuant to §843(1-A)); See, 36 M.R.5. §844 (The 2011 legislative change did
not alter this introductory phrase, it merely clarified "that only the applicant may appeal
to the State Board of Property Tax Review the decision of the assessors or municipal
officers with respect to a request for abatement of property taxes on nonresidential
property with a valuation of$ 1,000,000 or greater." 2011 Bill Text ME H.B. 1293).
"In general, the word 'may,' used in statutes, will be given ordinary meaning,
unless it would manifestly defeat the object of the statute, and when used in a statute is
permissive, discretionary, and not mandatory." Fitzpatrick v. McCrary, 2018 ME 48, P16,
182 A.3d 737, 742 (quoting, Collins v. State, 161 Me. 445, 449, 213 A.2d 835 (1965)).
Although context can reflect that the word "may" is not intended to be permissive, in
this instance the word "may" following "notwithstanding" reflects an intention that it
carry the permissive meaning.
The court finds that the Commissioners committed an error of law by determining
that they did not have jurisdiction over Appellant's abatement appeal. The appeal is
GRANTED and the matter is hereby remanded to the Aroostook County Commissioners
for a determination on the merits.
The Clerk is directed to enter this Decision and Order upon the civil docket by
reference pursuant to Rule 79(a) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated:
,MaineSuperior Court