Angell Family 2012 Prouts Neck Trusts v. Town of Scarborough Kenyon C. Bolton III v. Town of Scarborough
2016 ME 152
| Me. | 2016Background
- In 2012 Scarborough performed a partial revaluation that raised assessments 10–15% for certain Prouts Neck waterfront parcels after the town assessor’s sales study showed assessment-to-sales ratios below 100% for that neighborhood.
- Seventeen Prouts Neck property owners (Taxpayers) sought abatements alleging unjust discrimination; the Scarborough Board of Assessment Review denied the consolidated appeals after a two-day hearing.
- The Board found the revaluation data reasonable (eight sales), concluded Prouts Neck is a distinct market, and endorsed the assessor’s methodology; it also upheld the town’s practices for valuing large lots and combining abutting lots, calling the latter impact “minor.”
- The Business and Consumer Docket affirmed the Board, ruling the Taxpayers lacked standing to challenge the town’s excess-land programs and rejecting the discrimination claims on the merits.
- The Supreme Judicial Court (this opinion) held the Taxpayers had standing to challenge the abutting-lots practice, found the abutting-lots program produced discriminatory assessments (requiring abatements), affirmed the partial revaluation was properly supported, and remanded for determination of appropriate abatements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge abutting-lots ("abutting property program") | Taxpayers (Bolton et al.): they lack the benefit of the program and thus have particularized injury and standing | Town: program is applied townwide so challengers lack particularized injury | Court: Taxpayers have standing because they do not receive the program’s tax benefit and are specially injured |
| Abutting-lots program discriminatory | Taxpayers: combining contiguous lots for assessment gives a ‘‘major benefit’’ to owners of qualifying abutting lots, causing unequal apportionment | Town: program is a valuation method applied broadly and impact is minor | Court: program violates requirement to assess each parcel separately and results in unequal apportionment; abatements required |
| Large-lot (excess land) valuation method | Taxpayers: treating acreage above one acre at a reduced rate is unjustly discriminatory | Town: method reflects lower contributory value of excess acreage; assessments represent just value for the parcel | Court: Board reasonably found the large-lot method produced just-value assessments; no compelled finding of discrimination |
| 2012 partial revaluation and comparability with Piper Shores | Taxpayers: revaluation arbitrarily targeted Prouts Neck; excluded Piper Shores sales unfairly | Town: revaluation based on sales data showing Prouts Neck underassessed; Piper Shores not comparable and single sale unreliable | Court: revaluation was supported by competent evidence and not discriminatory; Piper Shores properties differ (size, amenities, questionable sale), so no relief on that claim |
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; burden to show unjust discrimination)
- Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Commission, 488 U.S. 336 (U.S. 1989) (constitutional requirement of rough equality in tax treatment)
- Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1946) (inequality in taxation where some pay taxes not imposed on others of same class)
- Arnold v. Maine State Highway Commission, 283 A.2d 655 (Me. 1971) (market-value sale-price inquiry; relevance of open-market characteristics)
- Kittery Electric Light Co. v. Assessors of the Town of Kittery, 219 A.2d 728 (Me. 1966) (sporadic valuation differences do not alone show invidious discrimination)