Appeal of City of Concord
13 A.3d 287
| N.H. | 2010Background
- Juniper Fells Phase IV subdivision had five building lots (under 10 acres) and a 14.52-acre common area; conveyance of the common area caused the land to fail current use taxation, triggering a land use change tax.
- City Planning Board granted conditional preliminary and final approval on March 15, 2006, conditioned on conveyance of the common area to the City (satisfied August 2006).
- LUCT bills were issued August 6, 2007; taxpayer allegedly did not receive actual notice of the bills, but later received a lien notice March 10, 2008.
- Taxpayer filed an abatement petition with the City on March 31, 2008 and appealed to BTLA on April 1, 2008 after the City did not act on the abatement.
- BTLA held that the taxpayer had timely abatement notice based on the lien notice, effectively bypassing statutory timing requirements, citing due process concerns.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that timely abatement petition within two months of notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite to BTLA review and that the BTLA lacked jurisdiction; the Court did not reach other arguments about due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BTLA had jurisdiction given timeliness of abatement | Juniper Fells contends timely abatement was required | City argues statutory deadlines must be strictly followed | BTLA lacked jurisdiction; timeliness strictly enforced |
| Whether due process required actual notice of LUCT | Taxpayer relied on due process rights to notice | Notice by mail suffices under due process | Mail notice is reasonably calculated to inform; actual notice not required; Court did not need to address further due process arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Appeal of Estate of Van Lunen, 145 N.H. 82 (2000) (strict enforcement of two-month abatement deadlines; timely filing required)
- Appeal of Roketenetz, 122 N.H. 869 (1982) (timeliness of abatement petitions critical)
- Town of Sunapee, 126 N.H. 214 (1985) (board’s subject-matter jurisdiction limited to selectmen's action)
- H.J.H. Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 108 N.H. 203 (1967) (inventory filing requirement superseded by statute)
- Appeal of Brady, 145 N.H. 308 (2000) (statutory inventory requirements superseded by current law)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (notice by mail presumption of receipt; actual receipt not required)
- Ladd v. Coleman, 128 N.H. 543 (1986) (timing of appellate review depends on actual or constructive notice)