304 A.3d 259
Me.2023Background
- Cassidy Holdings, LLC owns nonresidential property in the City of Caribou with an equalized municipal valuation of $1,000,000 or greater.
- Cassidy sought a partial abatement of its 2021 property tax; the City’s Board of Assessors denied the request and Caribou has no board of assessment review.
- Cassidy appealed the denial to the Aroostook County Commissioners; the Commissioners declined jurisdiction, concluding they lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Cassidy appealed the Commissioners’ jurisdictional determination to the Superior Court under M.R. Civ. P. 80B; the Superior Court held the Commissioners erred and remanded for merits consideration.
- The sole legal question on appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was whether 36 M.R.S. § 844(2) gives exclusive jurisdiction to the State Board of Property Tax Review for nonresidential property valued at $1,000,000+ or whether county commissioners and the State Board have concurrent jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, focusing on the plain meaning of § 844(1)–(2) and related statutory scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 36 M.R.S. § 844(2) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the State Board for abatement appeals involving nonresidential property ≥ $1,000,000 | Cassidy: § 844(2) permits appeal to the State Board but does not strip county commissioners of jurisdiction; applicants may choose either forum. | Commissioners: § 844(2) confines such appeals to the State Board (exclusive jurisdiction). | The statute is unambiguous: “notwithstanding” plus permissive “may” creates concurrent jurisdiction — property owners may appeal to either the county commissioners or the State Board. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penkul v. Town of Lebanon, 136 A.3d 88 (Me. 2016) (standard of review when Superior Court acts in an appellate capacity over administrative decisions)
- Desfosses v. City of Saco, 128 A.3d 648 (Me. 2015) (de novo review of statutory questions and applying plain-meaning rule)
- Wister v. Town of Mount Desert, 974 A.2d 903 (Me. 2009) (reading statutory provisions in context to achieve a harmonious result)
- Central Me. Power Co. v. Town of Moscow, 649 A.2d 320 (Me. 1994) (discussed prior treatment of appeals for high-valued nonresidential assessments to State Board)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (U.S. 2009) (agency must acknowledge and explain departures from prior policy)
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (U.S. 2005) (unexplained inconsistency can render an agency interpretation arbitrary)