Bilinsky v. Town of Newry
| Decision Date | 23 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | SUPERIOR COURT POCKET NO. CV-10-46 |
| Parties | SOPHIA BILINSKY and WALTER SHEVCHUK, Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF NEWRY, Defendant |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Before the court is the appeal by plaintiffs, Sophia Bilinsky and Walter Shevchuk, from a decision of the Oxford County Board of Assessment of Review denying an abatement of real estate taxes assessed against their property in the Town of Newry.
A. BACKGROUND1
On May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs purchased land located at 24 Powder Ridge Road in the Town of Newry. They paid $220,000. The plaintiffs submitted a building application with an estimated cost of construction of $2,000,000, which was approved on June 21, 2007. Construction of a residence on the property was completed in December of 2008. The plaintiffs currently use the residence as a vacation home and as a rental property.
In September of 2009, the Town Tax Assessor assessed the value of the property at $3,105,300. The approximate 4.45 acres of land was assessed at $274,600 and the building was assessed at $2,830,700. The Town Assessor used the same methodologyfor assessing the plaintiffs' property as used on other proprieties in the area. The assessor, "[i]n showing other land values in comparison, [noted] they were each in a different sub-division which would be priced at its own pricing schedule." The assessor used "a percentage increase to reflect lot development throughout the town which is a common assessing practice." Believing that the property was overvalued, the plaintiffs hired an independent appraiser, who assessed the fair market value of the property at $1,775,000.2
On October 16, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an application for an abatement of property taxes with the Town, requesting that the assessment to the real estate be reduced to $1,800,00. On January 28, 2010, the Town sent the plaintiffs a letter requesting information on the property's construction costs, a copy of the homeowner's policy, as well as an income and expense report. In response, on February 1, 2010, the plaintiffs informed the Town that, pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 844, because the Town failed to act within sixty days of the abatement application, they were appealing to the Oxford County Board of Assessment Review. The plaintiffs did not provide the Town with the information requested.3 On February 11, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed to theBoard.
On April 21, 2010, the Board held a hearing on the plaintiffs' abatement appeal. At hearing, the evidence presented included:
On May 5, 2010, the Board denied the appeal by a vote of 4-1. The Board issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law, finding that the plaintiffs had not mettheir burden of proof to demonstrate that the Town's 2009 revised assessment6 was manifestly wrong.
The plaintiffs have appealed the Board's decision pursuant to Rule 80B of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. DISCUSSION
"Article 9, section 8 of the Maine Constitution requires that 'all taxes upon real and personal estate . . . shall be apportioned and assessed equally, according to the just value thereof.'" City of Biddeford v. Adams, 1999 ME 49, ¶ 14, 727 A.2d 346, 349. '"Just value' must reflect the fair 'market value.'" Muirgen Props., Inc. v. Town of Boothbay, 663 A.2d 55, 58 (Me. 1995) (quoting Shawmut Inn v. Town of Kennebunkport, 428 A.2d 384, 389 (Me. 1981)). "Local assessors have been given considerable leeway in choosing the method or combinations of methods to achieve just valuations." Wesson v. Town of Bremen, 667 A.2d 596, 598 (Me. 1995). "A town's assessment is presumed valid and the taxpayer must prove it is manifestly wrong." Adams, 1999 ME 49, ¶ 13, 727 A.2d at 349. To show that an assessment is manifestly wrong, a taxpayer must prove:
Muirgen Props., Inc., 663 A.2d at 58 (internal citations omitted); see also Town of Southwest Harbor v. Harwood, 2000 ME 213, ¶ 8, 763 A.2d 115, 117-18.
The court reviews the Board's "decision for abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record." Muirgen Props., Inc., 663 A.2d at 58. "Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that evidence as sufficient support for a conclusion; the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions does not render the evidence insubstantial." Adelman v. Town of Baldwin, 2000 ME 91, ¶ 12, 750 A.2d 577, 853 (internal citations omitted). The court "will vacate the [Board's] conclusion that the taxpayer failed to meet this burden 'only if the record compels a contrary conclusion to the exclusion of any other inference.'" Yusum v. Town of Raymond, 2001 ME 61, ¶ 9, 769 A.2d 865, 870 (quoting Weekley v. Town of Scarborough, 676 A.2d 932, 934 (Me. 1996)).
The plaintiffs contend that the record compels the conclusion that their property was substantially overvalued because the Board failed to consider the fair market value of the property. They argue that their independent appraisal was more reflective of the just value of the property because it utilized more accurate methods of determining fair market value by comparing their property to other comparable homes in the area. They assert that the $1,000,000 difference between their assessment and the Town's assessment demonstrates the overvaluation of their property. They also claim that the 1.54 average grade of homes in the area, compared to the 2.81 grade of their home, demonstrates unjust discrimination.7 The Town argues that the Board's decision is legally correct and supported by substantial evidence on the record.
The Board determined that the plaintiffs did meet their burden to prove that the Town's valuation was manifestly wrong. See Town of Southwest Harbor v. Harwood, 2000 ME 213, ¶ 8, 763 A.2d 115, 117. The plaintiffs had an opportunity to present evidence and were heard. The Board chose not to accept the valuation advocated by the plaintiffs. Rather, it based its decision on the Assessor's valuation of the property, which is presumed valid, and the deficiencies in the plaintiffs' independent appraisal. The Board did not err in concluding that the Town's assessed value was not manifestly wrong, nor did it make a decision that was unsupported by the facts on the record. See McCuollough, 687 A.2d at 631 (). Therefore, it was not error for the Board to accept the Assessor's opinion and determine that the independent appraisal was not an accurate reflection of the value of the plaintiffs' property. The assessed value of the property is not "so unreasonable as to violate the constitutional mandate of justness and equality." Shawmut Inn, 428 A.2d at 395.
Plaintiffs also contend that they were subject to unjust discrimination because other comparable parcels in the area are assessed at a lower grade. There is competent evidence in the record, however, to support the Board's conclusion that the Assessor's decision did not unjustly discriminate.
It is clear that the Board considered the plaintiffs' contention that their property was treated differently from other properties in the Town, but were not persuaded by that contention. The Board's findings explicitly note that the independent appraiser's statement that the plaintiffs' home was "superior" to any other home sold in the Sunday River area contradicts the argument that the plaintiffs' property was made with lower quality materials than the six comparable properties used in the assessment. See Town of Bristol Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Bd. of Selectmen/Assessors for Bristol, 2008 ME 159, ¶11, 957 A.2d 977, 979 () (citing Ram's Head Partners, LLC v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 2003 ME 131, ¶ 10, 834 A.2d 916, 919). The findings also note that the plaintiffs failed to submit any other evidence of the construction costs associated with the home, evidence that they may not have been required to provide, but that could have supported their unjust discrimination claim. The Board considered the plaintiffs' claims, found that they were not supported by the evidence, and concluded that the Town's assessment was not manifestly wrong. See Harwood, 2000 ME 213, ¶ 22, 763 A.2d at 121 () (internal citations omitted). Because the plaintiffs "did not meet their burden to show that their assessment was manifestly wrong, the Board was not compelled to grant an abatement." Wesson, 667 A.2d at 599 (citing Glenridge Dev. Co. v. City of Augusta, 662 A.2d 928, 931 (Me. 1995)).
III. CONCLUSION
The Board's decision is supported by...
To continue reading
Request your trial