Find Legal Information

Leach Memorial Home v. City of Brewer
Download as PDF
Wordperfect 3
Back to Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT				Reporter of Decisions
Decision:1998 ME 118
Docket:Pen-97-611
Argued:	May 4, 1998
Decided:May 22, 1998


Panel:WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, CLIFFORD, DANA, and SAUFLEY, JJ.

ELLEN M. LEACH MEMORIAL HOME

v.

CITY OF BREWER

WATHEN, C.J.

	[¶1] The City of Brewer appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court
(Penobscot County, Alexander, J.) finding that it did not have jurisdiction to
hear an appeal of the local board's denial of an application for a review of a
tax assessment.  On appeal the City contends that the Superior Court has
original jurisdiction over the appeal because the assessed property is
residential and, by statute, appeals of residential assessments must be heard
by the Superior Court.  Finding no error in the judgment of the court, we
affirm.
	[¶2]  The facts are not in dispute.  The Ellen M. Leach Memorial Home
("the Home") is a non-profit corporation that owns and manages a 30 unit
elderly housing congregate care facility in the City of Brewer.  The Home
applied for an abatement from its 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 tax
assessments, but the application was denied by the Brewer Tax Assessor. 
The Home appealed to the Brewer Board of Assessment Review and again
the Home's application for abatement was denied.  The Home then filed a
petition for assessment review with the State of Maine Board of Property
Tax Review and a hearing was scheduled. 
	[¶3]  When the Home was notified that the City planned to challenge
the authority of the State of Maine Board of Property Tax Review to hear the
appeal, the Home filed a complaint pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 80B but moved to
stay all proceedings related to the complaint until their petition for review
was heard by the State Board. In response, the City moved the court to issue
a  declaratory judgment on the matter of jurisdiction, arguing that the
Superior Court was the proper forum to review the local board's decision. 
Following a hearing, the court concluded that the Home's congregate care
facility is nonresidential property and, therefore, the State Board has initial
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 843(1-A) (Supp.
1997).  The City now appeals the court's judgment.
	[¶4]  The statutory provisions at issue in this appeal, 36 M.R.S.A. §
843(1) & (1-A) (Supp. 1997){1} provide generally that any party may appeal a
local board's denial of a taxpayer's request for an abatement to the Superior
Court.  The statute specifically provides, however, that in cases of
nonresidential property with an equalized municipal valuation of $1,000,000
or greater, a party may appeal directly to the State Board of Property Tax
Review. 36 M.R.S.A. § 843(1-A).  "Nonresidential property" is defined as
"property that is used primarily for commercial, industrial or business
purposes, excluding unimproved land that is not associated with a
commercial, industrial or business use." Id.  In its order, the court
concluded that the Home's undisputed use of the property, maintaining an
elderly housing congregate care facility, qualified it as nonresidential
property for the purpose of section 843(1-A).  We review the trial court's
interpretation of the statute for errors of law. See Daniels v. Tew Mac Aero
Servs., Inc., 675 A.2d 984, 987 (Me. 1996).{2}
	[¶5]  When construing a statute, we look first to the plain meaning of
the statutory language seeking to give effect to the legislative intent.  Cook v.
Lisbon School Comm., 682 A.2d 672, 676 (Me. 1996).  If the statute is clear
on its face, we need not look beyond the words themselves. Id.  We will also
consider the "whole statutory scheme for which the section at issue forms a
part so that a harmonious result, presumably the intent of the Legislature
may be achieved." Estate of Whittier, 681 A.2d 1, 2 (Me. 1996).
	[¶6]  The statute defines nonresidential property as "property that is
used primarily  for commercial, industrial or business purposes . . . ."  36
M.R.S.A. § 843 (1-A).  The Home, as described by the City of Brewer's Board
of Assessment Review, is a "three-story wooden frame congregate housing
facility containing 30 1-bedroom apartments, a common area kitchen,
dining room, lounge, arts and crafts room, laundry facilities, beauty salon,
exercise room, and library."  The Home is in the business of providing
housing and services for the elderly and the facility is used in furtherance of
such purposes.  Despite the fact that people reside in the Home, the owner
uses it for commercial purposes as defined by section 843(1-A).  The court
did not err in declining to hear the appeal.
	The entry is:
					Judgment affirmed.
                                                                           
Attorney for plaintiff:

Edmond J. Bearor, Esq., (orally)	
Rudman & Winchell, LLC	
P O Box 1401	
Bangor, ME 04402-1401	
	
Attorneys for defendant:

Michael H. Griffin, Esq., (orally)
Kerry Clark Jordan, Esq.
Curtis & Griffin
P O Box 400
Orono, ME 04473-0400