Maplevale Builders, LLC v. Town of Danville
165 N.H. 99
| N.H. | 2013Background
- Town abated land use change tax (LUCT) assessments issued to Maplevale Builders, LLC, Hoyt Real Estate Trust, and John H. and Maryann Manning as untimely under RSA 79-A:7 (Supp. 2006) as amended 2009–2012.
- Hoyt sought to develop a 15-lot subdivision on open-space land eligible for current use taxation; road improved to serve the subdivision.
- Final subdivision approval was granted April 23, 2009, after the road had been completed; Hoyt received a certificate of registration January 28, 2010.
- Maplevale obtained building permits for several lots (2010); LUCT bills issued June 2010 for the road and some lots, and February 2011 for remaining lots.
- Petitions to abate were filed in January 2011 (June 2010 bills) and September 2011 (February 2011 bills); trial court found LUCTs untimely and abated them, holding change-in-use occurred on April 23, 2009.
- The court remanded to determine per-lot change-in-use dates under Van Lunen’s lot-by-lot framework; legislature amended RSA 79-A:7, V(a) removing “completed development plan,” supporting Van Lunen interpretation; issues remain on remand regarding timeliness and per-lot change-in-use dates.
- The trial court also erred in applying the old 12-month limitation period (now 18 months) retroactively; the amendment applies to notices/discoveries after April 1, 2009, affecting June 2010 bills; issue of retroactivity analyzed under Article 23; record insufficient to address a separate waiver argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did each lot change in use under RSA 79-A:7, V(a)/IV(a)? | Van Lunen permits lot-by-lot change-in-use determinations. | Van Lunen should stand or be refined; the completed development plan language removed by amendment clarifies interpretation. | Remand to redetermine per-lot change-in-use dates and timeliness on remand. |
| Should Van Lunen be overruled or retained given legislative amendment? | Petitioners urge overruling due to misapplication. | Stare decisis factors not satisfied; Van Lunen remains controlling. | Overruling not warranted; Van Lunen retained. |
| Which version of RSA 79-A:7, 11(c) applies to timeliness, 12-month vs 18-month limit? | 12-month period applied; amendment extends to 18 months. | Amendment applies to notices/discoveries after April 1, 2009; vested rights analysis favors retroactivity analysis. | Amended 18-month period applies; remand to apply correct period. |
| Whether the Attorney General certificate of registration constitutes a necessary state approval delaying LUCT under V(a) | Certificate may delay LUCT until permits/approvals secured. | Record insufficient to determine if raised below; not addressed on appeal. | Not addressed on appeal due to inadequate record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Appeal of Estate of Van Lunen, 145 N.H. 82 (2000) (lot-by-lot removal under 79-A:7, V(a) allowed when development plan supports it)
- Formula Dev. Corp. v. Town of Chester, 156 N.H. 177 (2007) (special concurrence discussed interpretation; amended statute clarified view after ruling)
- Frost v. Town of Candia, 118 N.H. 923 (1978) (subdivision approvals do not by themselves remove land from current use)