JMJ Properties, LLC v. Town of Auburn, 168 N.H. 127

JMJ Properties owned an 18‑lot cluster subdivision taxed as current use for 2011–2012.
In July 2011 JMJ began road construction; that change in use disqualified the parcel from current use assessment as of that date.
The Town did not learn of the change until summer 2012; it issued a Land Use Change Tax (LUCT) bill and, in December 2012, abated the 2012 lump tax bill and issued supplemental 2012 tax bills for each lot based on market value.
JMJ sought abatement, arguing RSA 76:14 barred supplemental bills because the Town had already issued 2012 tax bills and contending the market valuations were excessive.
The superior court granted the Town’s motion for summary judgment, holding RSA 79‑A:7 authorized taxing the land at full market value once use changed (regardless of when the municipality discovered the change), and rejected application of RSA 76:14 and Pheasant Lane.
The parties resolved valuation; JMJ appealed the statutory interpretation question addressed by the Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RSA 79‑A:7 permits the Town to issue supplemental tax bills based on market value in Dec. 2012 after a prior tax bill for 2012 was issued	RSA 79‑A:7 requires taxing at market value only beginning in the tax year after the LUCT is issued (i.e., on/after Apr. 1, 2013)	"Thereafter" in RSA 79‑A:7 authorizes taxation at market value as of the time of the change in use, so supplemental bills may be issued once the municipality learns of the change and issues the LUCT	Held: RSA 79‑A:7 authorizes market‑value assessment at the time of the change in use (regardless of when the municipality learned of it), so the Town could issue Dec. 2012 supplemental bills based on market value
Whether RSA 76:14 (supplemental bills for property that "escaped taxation") barred issuance of supplemental bills here	JMJ: 2012 tax bills had already been issued, so the property had not escaped taxation and RSA 76:14 prohibits supplemental bills	Town: alternative argument that RSA 76:14 authorizes supplemental billing; trial court relied on RSA 79‑A:7 and did not need to reach RSA 76:14	Court affirmed on RSA 79‑A:7 grounds and did not decide RSA 76:14 (no need to reach alternative argument)

Pheasant Lane Realty Trust v. City of Nashua, 143 N.H. 140 (1998) (municipality may not issue supplemental tax bill under RSA 76:14 for property undervalued because undervalued property has not "escaped taxation")
Eby v. State, 166 N.H. 321 (2014) (standards for statutory interpretation; court as final arbiter of legislative intent)
Granite State Mgmt. & Res. v. City of Concord, 165 N.H. 277 (2013) (summary judgment cross‑motion review standard)
Woodview Dev. Corp. v. Town of Pelham, 152 N.H. 114 (2005) (once land leaves current use, owner is not entitled to reduced assessment; current use limited to period before change)
Appeal of Town of Charlestown, 166 N.H. 498 (2014) (describes statutory purpose of current use taxation to preserve open space)