Find Legal Information

Christian Fellowship v. Town of Limington
Download as PDF
Back to the Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURTReporter of Decisions
Decision:	2001 ME 16
Docket: 	Yor-00-160
Argued:	September 7, 2000
Decided:	January 24, 2001

Panel: 	WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and
CALKINS, JJ.

CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP AND RENEWAL CENTER

v.

TOWN OF LIMINGTON et al.

CALKINS, J.

	[¶1]  The Christian Fellowship and Renewal Center appeals from a
judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County, Brennan, J.) affirming
the decision of the York County Commissioners denying a tax abatement. 
The Center contends that its property is exempt from taxation, pursuant to
36 M.R.S.A. § 652(1)(A) (Supp. 2000), because it is a benevolent or
charitable organization.  The commissioners determined that the Center was
not exempt from taxation.  Because we conclude that the findings of fact
issued by the county commissioners are insufficient to permit appellate
review, we vacate the Superior Court decision and remand the case to the
Superior Court with directions to remand the matter to the York County
Commissioners for further findings of fact.
	[¶2]  It is not disputed that the Center owns ninety-one acres in
Limington which it purchased in 1989.  From that time until the 1996 tax
year, Limington did not assess taxes on the property.  For tax year 1996,
however, Limington assessed property tax on eighty-eight of the ninety-one
acres, but it granted an exemption from taxation for three acres.  The
exempted three-acre parcel includes one building, known as the retreat
center.  Two buildings, the caretaker's house and the farmhouse, are on the
portion of land which Limington determined is subject to taxation.
	[¶3]  Through an abatement application, the Center requested that
Limington exempt all ninety-one acres from taxation for 1996.  Because
Limington did not respond to this request or to an attempted appeal to the
Limington Board of Appeals and Assessment Review, the Center sought
review in court pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B.  The Superior Court (Fritzsche,
J.) remanded the matter, and, eventually, a hearing was held before the York
County Commissioners on the Center's abatement request.{1}  The county
commissioners issued a document entitled "Findings of Fact," in which they
concluded that the Center was not entitled to a tax exemption on the eighty-
eight acres and denied the abatement request.  The Center sought court
review, and the Superior Court affirmed the decision of the commissioners.
	[¶4]  When the Superior Court acts in an appellate capacity, we review
directly the determination of the commissioners for errors of law, abuse of
discretion, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence.  See Goldstein v.
Town of Georgetown, 1998 ME 261, ¶ 5, 721 A.2d 180, 181.
	[¶5]  The Center asserts it is a charitable organization that uses its real
property in Limington solely for benevolent and charitable purposes, and
therefore, that its property should not be subject to taxation.  It relies on 36
M.R.S.A. § 652(1)(A) which states in part:

The following property of institutions and organizations is
exempt from taxation:

 .     .     .

A.  The real estate and personal property owned and occupied or
used solely for their own purposes by benevolent and charitable
institutions incorporated by this State.  Such an institution may
not be deprived of the right of exemption by reason of the
source from which its funds are derived or by reason of
limitation in the classes of persons for whose benefit such funds
are applied.

	[¶6]  The Center has the burden of demonstrating for the tax year
1996 that:  (1) it owned the property; (2) it was a benevolent and charitable
institution; and (3) it used or occupied the property solely for its own
purposes.  Id.  This last element means a showing that the Center had
"exclusive occupation of such a nature as, within the meaning of the statute,
contributes immediately to the promotion of benevolence and charity, and
the advancement thereof."{2}  Camp Emoh Assocs. v. Inhabitants of Lyman,
132 Me. 67, 70, 166 A. 59, 61 (1933).  We have also stated that in every tax
exemption case, "there must be a careful examination to determine whether
in fact the institution is organized and conducting its operation for purely
benevolent and charitable purposes . . . ."  Green Acre Baha'i Inst. v. Town of
Eliot, 150 Me. 350, 354, 110 A.2d 581, 584 (1954).
	[¶7]  The county commissioners issued a document entitled "Findings
of Fact" in which they concluded that the Center was not entitled to a tax
exemption and denied the abatement request.  The "Findings of Fact"
includes a detailed statement reciting the procedural posture of the case
and the respective legal and factual contentions of the parties.  The findings
contain several paragraphs describing the position and claims of the Center,
including the sentence, "[The Center] notes that Christian Fellowship and
Renewal Center should continue to be tax exempt as they provide religious,
charitable and food distribution services."  Another paragraph sets forth the
position of Limington:  "McGlauflin, on behalf of the Town of Limington
notes that the Center property is used for a variety of functions for fees and
not solely charitable or benevolent purposes."  Recitation of the parties'
positions or reiterations of the evidence presented by the parties do not
constitute findings and are not a substitute for findings.  See Newsweek
Magazine v. Dist. of Columbia Comm'n on Human Rights, 376 A.2d 777, 784
(D.C. 1977); Roy v. Town of Barnet, 522 A.2d 225, 226 (Vt. 1986).
	[¶8]  The only portions of the findings which could be considered
factual findings are statements that (1) the Center owns ninety-one acres of
land in Limington; (2) Limington was advised by the State of Maine Bureau of
Property Taxation that the Center did not qualify for exemption as a
charitable and benevolent organization but that a portion of the property
used for religious purposes did qualify; and (3) Limington followed the
State's opinion and exempted from taxation the retreat center and three
acres of land.
	[¶9]  The commissioners made no findings as to whether the Center
was a benevolent and charitable institution and whether the Center used or
occupied the property exclusively for its own charitable and benevolent
purposes.  Limington presented evidence that the Center offered its
facilities for rent for weddings, baby and bridal showers, graduations, family
reunions, and receptions, and that in some years it sold gravel from its land. 
The Center, on the other hand, supplied evidence of churches and other
groups that used its facilities.  It also presented evidence that no gravel was
sold in 1996.
	[¶10]  The commissioners failed to make findings sufficient to apprise
either us or the parties of the basis for their conclusion that the Center was
not entitled to the tax exemption.  The insufficient findings do not allow a
reviewing court to determine whether the commissioners' decision is
supported by substantial evidence.
	[¶11]  We are aware of the line of Maine cases holding that, when an
administrative agency fails to make sufficient findings of fact and the
appealing party fails to request findings of fact, the reviewing court will
assume that the agency found all facts necessary to support its decision.   In
Advanced Med. Research Found. v. Town of Cushing, 555 A.2d 1040 (Me.
1989) we held that in the absence of subsidiary findings, a court reviewing
the commissioners' denial of a tax exemption must assume that the
commissioners resolved all factual issues in favor of the Town and against
the taxpayer.  Id. at 1041.  That case, however, relied upon the holding in
Libby v. Lorrain, 430 A.2d 37 (Me. 1981) which was not a review of an
administrative agency determination but was an action in court to partition
real estate.  In Libby,  we said that when a trial court does not make findings
of fact and a party fails to request findings under M.R. Civ. P. 52(a), a
reviewing court assumes that the trial justice found for the prevailing party
on all factual questions necessary to the decision.  Libby, 430 A.2d at 38.  In
Advanced Med. Research we did not articulate the rationale for applying
M.R. Civ. P. 52(a) to cases reviewing administrative agency decisions.
	[¶12]  There is another line of Maine cases which holds that when the
findings of fact of an administrative agency are insufficient to allow review of
the agency's decision, the reviewing court should remand the case to the
agency for further findings.  In Harrington v. Inhabitants of Town of
Kennebunk, 459 A.2d 557, 561 (Me. 1983) (citations and quotation
omitted), we said:  "[T]he remedy for an agency's failure to act on all matters
properly before it or to make sufficient and clear findings of fact is a remand
to the agency for findings that permit meaningful judicial review."  Although
Harrington involved the review of a zoning board of appeals, there is no
reasoned basis for requiring zoning boards to adhere to the requirement of
making sufficient findings but allowing county commissioners, when
deciding tax abatement cases, to escape meaningful court review by failing to
make findings.
	[¶13]  These two lines of cases, represented by Advanced Med.
Research and Harrington, have been followed in other cases,{3} but the cases
from one line have not referred to or discussed the other line of cases
except in one dissenting opinion.  See P.H. Chadbourne & Co. v. Inhabitants
of Town of Bethel, 452 A.2d 400, 402, 408 (Me. 1982) (Carter, J.,
dissenting).
	[¶14]  After review of the decisions in these two lines of cases, we
conclude that this particular case requires a remand to the commissioners
because their findings are insufficient to permit meaningful review.  Our
reasons are several.  First, the county commissioners are required by statute
to make findings of fact that are "sufficient to appraise the applicant and any
interested member of the public of the basis for the decision."  1 M.R.S.A. 
§ 407(1), (2) (1989).  There is no question that the findings in this case fail
to meet that requirement.  Although this statutory mandate is contained in
the Maine Freedom of Access Act, and the purpose of the statute differs
from the purpose of requiring findings for judicial review, it signifies the
recognition of the Maine Legislature of the importance of agency findings.{4} 	
	[¶15]  Second, there cannot be meaningful judicial review of agency
decisions without findings of fact.  See Gashgai v. Bd. of Registration in Med.,
390 A.2d 1080, 1085 (Me. 1978).  Without such findings, there is a clear
danger of "judicial usurpation of administrative functions."  Id. at 1085
(citing 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 16.01 (1958)).  Other
purposes of adequate findings are to "assure more careful administrative
considerations, help parties plan cases for rehearing or judicial review and
to keep agencies within their jurisdiction."  Maine AFL-CIO v.
Superintendent of Ins., 595 A.2d 424, 428 (Me. 1991).  Without adequate
findings, a reviewing court cannot determine if the agency's findings are
supported by the evidence.  See King v. Dist. of Columbia Dept. of
Employment Servs., 742 A.2d 460, 465 (D.C. 1999); Kiawah Prop. Owners
Group v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of S.C., 525 S.E.2d 863, 865 (S.C. 1999).
	[¶16]  Third, the weight of authority in other jurisdictions supports a
remand instead of an assumption that an agency has found facts to support
its conclusion when its findings are inadequate for review.  In his treatise on
administrative law, Professor Davis notes that the requirement for agencies
to make adequate findings of fact has been found in the Due Process Clause
of the Untied States Constitution, a large variety of statutes, and the
common law.  3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 14:21 at 99-103 (2d
ed. 1980).  Regardless of the source of the requirement, Professor Davis
reports that the lower federal courts uniformly require agencies to state
their findings and reasons.  Id. § 14:24 at 114.  Furthermore, when the
findings are inadequate, the federal courts remand the case to the agency to
make findings.  Id.  Likewise, state courts often remand cases to the
administrative agency when the findings are inadequate for judicial review
whether the requirement for findings comes from a statute or the common
law.{5}
	[¶17]  Fourth, there is no formal process for a party to request
findings of the commissioners similar to the process for requesting judicial
findings in M.R. Civ. P. 52(a).  Courts are not required to make findings of
fact, except in a very few cases, but the procedural rules provide a
mechanism for a party to request findings.  Only when a party fails to
request findings does a reviewing court assume that the trial court found all
facts necessary to support its decision.  We are aware of no procedural rule
or formal mechanism for a party to request such findings before the county
commissioners.  Although the lack of such a mechanism should not prevent
or prohibit a party from requesting findings, there is an element of
unfairness in penalizing a party for failing to request findings when there
was no procedural basis for doing so.{6}
	[¶18]  Finally, policy reasons support a remand to the commissioners
to make the findings of fact.  The lack of meaningful review will place these
same parties and others similarly situated in a continuing quandary as to
whether there is an entitlement in other years or in similar situations to a
tax exemption.  Courts, in reviewing agency decisions, should hold agencies
accountable to follow statutory requirements, and the county commissioners
had a statutory duty to make findings.  There is a widespread recognition of
the need for adequate findings of fact by agencies as can be seen by the
enactment of federal and state administrative procedure acts.  See 5 U.S.C.A. 
§§ 701-706 (1996); 5 M.R.S.A.  §§ 8001-12015 (1989 & Pamph. 2000).
	[¶19]  It is not our intention to declare a hard and fast rule that
whenever agencies fail to articulate factual findings on contested issues of
fact, a reviewing court should remand the matter to the agency.  In some
cases the subsidiary facts may be obvious or easily inferred from the record
and the general factual findings, and a remand would be unnecessary.  In
this case, however, we are unable to determine or infer the subsidiary facts
from the general conclusion, and we are left without knowing whether the
commissioners found that the Center occupied or used its property for
noncharitable purposes; whether the commissioners relied on the letter
from the Maine Bureau of Property Tax Exemption for their conclusion; or
whether some other basis underlies their conclusion.  Because we are unable
to appropriately review the commissioners' decision, we remand this matter
for the York County Commissioners to articulate the factual findings that
support its conclusion.

	The entry is:
Judgment vacated.  The case is remanded to
the Superior Court which is to remand the
matter to the York County Commissioners with
instructions for further findings of fact
consistent with this opinion.

Attorney for plaintiff:

Stephen C. Whiting, Esq., (orally)
The Whiting Law Firm, P.A.
75 Pearl Street, suite 207
Portland, ME 04101

Attorneys for defendant:

Bruce A. McGlauflin, Esq., (orally)
James B. Haddow, Esq.
Petruccelli & Martin, LLP
P O Box 9733
Portland, ME 04104-5033