Angell Family 2012 Prouts Neck Trusts v. Town of Scarborough Kenyon C. Bolton III v. Town of Scarborough
149 A.3d 271
| Me. | 2016Background
- In 2012 Scarborough conducted a partial revaluation based on sales data; waterfront properties in Prouts Neck had assessment-to-sales ratios well below 100%, producing 10–15% assessment increases for those parcels.
- Seventeen Prouts Neck property owners (the Taxpayers) sought abatements under 36 M.R.S. § 841(1), alleging unjust discrimination and disparate treatment compared to other neighborhoods and to owners who benefit from the Town’s “excess land” practices.
- The Town uses two valuation practices relevant here: a “large lot” method valuing the first acre at a higher rate and excess acreage at a lower rate, and an “abutting property” program allowing commonly owned contiguous lots to be assessed as one unit at a reduced combined value.
- The Scarborough Board of Assessment Review upheld the revaluation for Prouts Neck based on eight sales and MRS review, and rejected the Taxpayers’ discrimination claims, finding the abutting-lot impact minor.
- The Business and Consumer Docket affirmed the Board but held the Taxpayers lacked standing to challenge the excess-land programs. The Taxpayers appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Town’s abutting-lot and large-lot programs | Taxpayers lack the benefit of those programs and thus have particularized injury; they can seek relief | Town argued the programs are applied uniformly and plaintiffs lack particularized injury | Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the abutting-lot program; large-lot challenge considered on the merits for parcels < 1 acre |
| Legality of abutting-lot program (combining contiguous lots owned in common for lower combined assessment) | Program unlawfully avoids separate assessment of each parcel and results in unequal apportionment | Town defended it as a routine assessment practice and authorized in practice | Program violates requirement to assess each parcel separately by just value and produces discriminatory unequal apportionment; plaintiffs entitled to abatements for 2012 |
| Lawfulness of large-lot valuation (first acre higher, excess acreage lower) | Program results in unjust discrimination against owners of smaller lots | Town maintained that valuing excess acreage at lower marginal value yields just value for whole parcel | Board’s finding that large-lot method produced just value was permissible; plaintiffs failed to show discrimination on record |
| 2012 partial revaluation targeting Prouts Neck (use of eight sales; exclusion of Piper Shores) | Revaluation arbitrarily targeted Prouts Neck and relied on flawed / non-arm’s-length sales; similar waterfront area (Piper Shores) was ignored | Town ass. justified by market studies showing Prouts Neck ratios well below 100%; Piper Shores not comparable and single sale there was unreliable | Board did not err: reliance on eight sales and MRS review was reasonable; Piper Shores not similarly situated and single sale was insufficient to compel revaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough, 90 A.3d 1131 (Me. 2014) (standard of review and evidentiary sufficiency for Board findings)
- Ram’s Head Partners, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 834 A.2d 916 (Me. 2003) (presumption of validity for municipal assessments and burden to prove unjust discrimination)
- Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Commission, 488 U.S. 336 (U.S. 1989) (constitutional requirement of rough equality in tax treatment of similarly situated property owners)
- Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1946) (taxes imposed on some but not others of same class support unequal apportionment claim)
- Arnold v. Maine State Highway Commission, 283 A.2d 655 (Me. 1971) (weight to give sale price depends on whether sale reflects open-market willing-buyer/willing-seller transaction)
- Frank v. Assessors of Skowhegan, 329 A.2d 167 (Me. 1974) (market value defined as price a willing buyer would pay a willing seller)
- Shawmut Inn v. Town of Kennebunkport, 428 A.2d 384 (Me. 1981) (sale price admissibility and probative weight in valuation disputes)
- Kittery Electric Light Co. v. Assessors of the Town of Kittery, 219 A.2d 728 (Me. 1966) (sporadic valuation differences do not alone establish invidious discrimination)