Linda Penkul v. Town of Lebanon, 136 A.3d 88

Linda Penkul applied on April 1, 2013 for real property tax abatement for tax years 2011–2013 asserting poverty/hardship and listing income, assets, debts, and household needs.
The Town of Lebanon denied abatement on the ground the taxes had been paid; Penkul appealed to the York County Commissioners who held a de novo hearing on May 7, 2014 and denied abatement for 2011–2012 (remanding 2013 to the Town).
The Superior Court retained jurisdiction, ordered the parties to assemble the administrative record, and reviewed Penkul’s appeal from the Commissioners’ 2011–2012 determinations.
Penkul failed to provide a complete administrative record: her filings omitted her abatement application, the Commissioners’ written decision, and there is no transcript or minutes of the May 7, 2014 hearing; the Town submitted its version of documents.
The Superior Court affirmed the Commissioners’ denial for 2011–2012, concluding the Commissioners’ decision was supported by the record and that Penkul failed to preserve any constitutional challenge during the administrative proceedings.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding Penkul bore the obligation to provide a complete record for appellate review and that, on the record presented, there was no error, abuse of discretion, or compelled abatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commissioners erred in factual findings about Penkul’s income	Penkul: income findings were incorrect, meriting abatement	Town: record supports findings; taxes properly assessed	Held: No reversible factual error; appellant failed to supply complete record to show error
Whether Commissioners abused discretion or erred in denying abatement under hardship standard	Penkul: hardship/poverty made her unable to contribute to public charges, so abatement required	Town: applicant did not meet burden to show over-assessment or entitlement to abatement	Held: No abuse of discretion shown; evidence did not compel abatement on record presented
Whether Penkul preserved constitutional equal protection/due process claims	Penkul: denial violated constitutional rights (argued on appeal)	Town: constitutional challenge not raised below and thus unpreserved	Held: Constitutional issues not preserved before Commissioners; may not be raised on appeal absent obvious error, which record does not show
Whether appellate record was adequate for review	Penkul: raised numerous arguments and exhibits on appeal	Town: Penkul failed to supply complete administrative record; Town provided its documents	Held: Penkul had responsibility to assemble and file the complete record; failure precludes meaningful appellate review and dooms her claims

Town of Bristol Taxpayers’ Ass’n v. Bd. of Selectmen/Assessors for Town of Bristol, 957 A.2d 977 (clarifies review standard: findings must be supported by substantial evidence and assesses abuse of discretion)
Cent. Me. Power Co. v. Town of Moscow, 649 A.2d 320 (places burden of proof on taxpayer in administrative appeal)
Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 604 A.2d 908 (vacating agency decision only when evidence compels relief)
Ram’s Head Partners, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 834 A.2d 916 (appellant must preserve an adequate record for appellate review)
Clark v. Hancock Cty. Comm’rs, 87 A.3d 712 (issues not raised to agency cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
Mallinckrodt US LLC v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 90 A.3d 428 (unpreserved issues reviewed only for obvious error affecting substantial rights)
Sanborn v. Town of Eliot, 425 A.2d 629 (new hearing required when administrative record is inadequate)
Chase v. Town of Machiasport, 721 A.2d 636 (procedural note that county commissioners may be parties in Rule 80B appeals)