|
Rackliffe v. Nothport Village
Download as PDF
Wordperfect 3
Back to Opinions page
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 1998 ME 114
Docket: Wal-97-432
Argued: March 3, 1998
Decided: May 18, 1998
Panel:WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, LIPEZ, and
SAUFLEY, JJ.
PETER RACKLIFFE et al.
v.
NORTHPORT VILLAGE CORPORATION et al.
ROBERTS, J.
[¶1] Peter Rackliffe, Galen Plummer, Ann Bixler, and Euclid
Handbury, Jr., appeal from the judgment entered in the Superior Court
(Waldo County) in favor of Northport Village Corporation, the Town of
Northport, and its tax assessors. They contend that the court (MacInnes,
A.R.J.) erred by deciding that the Village was not a municipality within the
meaning of the municipal election laws and therefore did not have to comply
with the voter qualification requirements of 21-A M.R.S.A. § 111 (1993).
They also argue that the court (Brodrick, A.R.J.) erred by concluding that
they had failed to show that the village tax is unconstitutional. We affirm the
judgment.
[¶2] Northport Village Corporation was created by P. & S.L. 1915, ch.
136 and is located within the Town of Northport. Its charter provides for
an annual meeting of the residents of the Village to be held on the second
Tuesday in August. One of the purposes of the meeting is to determine the
budget for the coming year. For that reason, a proposed budget is presented
to the qualified voters of the Village. After the voters approve the budget,
the Town's tax assessors assess the property owned by the Village residents
to raise the necessary revenue. The charter allows individuals who own
property in the Village to vote at the annual meeting regardless of whether
they are residents of the Town. Property within the Village limits is also
separately taxed by the Town.
[¶3] The plaintiffs are owners of property in Northport Village. In
January 1995 the plaintiffs, contending that the Village's voting procedures
are unfair and that their property had been subject to an unconstitutional
tax, filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment
that the Village tax is unconstitutional because (1) the Village lacks the
authority to raise revenue, (2) the taxes are assessed without consideration
of the extent of the benefit conferred on the property taxed, and (3) the
taxes are apportioned unequally in relation to the value of the property being
taxed. In November 1995 the plaintiffs filed a motion for a summary
judgment. The Village filed an objection to the plaintiffs' motion and
requested that the court enter a summary judgment in its favor on all of the
counts. The court held that the Village was not subject to the voter
qualification requirements of 21-A M.R.S.A. § 111, and therefore
nonresidents had the right to vote at the Village Corporation's annual
meeting. The court further noted that whether the assessment of the taxes
is unconstitutional was unanswerable on the record before it and ordered a
trial for a determination of that issue. This appeal followed the trial court's
decision that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the tax practices of the
Village are unconstitutional.
[¶4] The plaintiffs' first contention on appeal is that the Village is a
municipality under 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2501 (1996) and therefore its voter
qualifications are governed by 21-A M.R.S.A. § 111.{1} The Village counters
that the Legislature did not intend that the voter qualification requirements
of section 111 apply to village elections. We agree.
[¶5] "A summary judgment is proper when the party that bears the
burden of proof of an essential element at trial has presented evidence that,
if it presented no more, would entitle the opposing party to a judgment as a
matter of law." Jacques v. Pioneer Plastics, Inc., 676 A.2d 504, 506 (Me.
1996). In reviewing a grant of a summary judgment, we view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the party against whom a judgment has been
granted and review the trial court decision for errors of law. Id.
[¶6] The meaning and construction of a statute is a question of law.
Community Telecomm. Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 684 A.2d 424, 426 (Me.
1996). When interpreting a statute, we will examine the plain meaning of
the statutory language to give effect to the legislative intent; "[i]n so doing,
we remain mindful of the whole statutory scheme, of which the section at
issue forms a part, so that a harmonious result may be achieved." Daniels v.
Tew Mac Aero Servs., Inc., 675 A.2d 984, 987 (Me. 1996). Moreover,
statutory language is construed to avoid absurd, illogical, or inconsistent
results. Estate of Whittier, 681 A.2d 1, 2 (Me. 1996).
[¶7] Although the plaintiffs have cited several of our decisions and
many legislative enactments in which village corporations are treated as a
municipality, the Legislature is not prohibited from treating a village
corporation differently if it so chooses. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1(27) (1993)
defines the term "municipality" as it is used in Title 21-A as "a city, town or
plantation." By excluding village corporations from the list, the Legislature
has explicitly shown its intent to exclude village elections from the
requirements of section 111. When the Legislature has intended to treat
village corporations as municipalities, it has done so explicitly. See 30-A
M.R.S.A. § 5903 and § 6302 (1996 & Supp. 1997). The Legislature also has
not repealed the section of the charter articulating voter requirements for
village elections. We conclude therefore that the Legislature intended that
the voter qualifications for village elections are governed by the
requirements set forth in their individual charters.
[¶8] The plaintiffs also contend that the trial court erred by
concluding that they failed to show that the tax is unconstitutional. Taxes
assessed for public purposes must be uniformly applied. See Me. Const. art.
IX, § 8. If, however, a town, city, or smaller district receives a special
benefit from a public improvement, it may be required to shoulder a greater
tax burden as long as the burden is proportional to the benefit received.
Town of Stonington v. Town of Deer Isle, 403 A.2d 1181, 1184-85 (Me.
1979). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the evidence supports the
court's finding that any benefit received by nonresidents of the Village from
public improvements funded by the tax was incidental and that the Village
residents were the primary recipients of the benefit conferred by these
improvements. The evidence further demonstrated that the tax burden on
the Village residents was proportional to the benefit received from the
public improvements. In sum, the nature of the evidence is not such that
the factfinder was compelled to believe that the tax is unconstitutional.
Dawson v. Lussier, 632 A.2d 128, 129 (Me. 1993).
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Attorney for plaintiffs:
John C. Bannon, Esq., (orally)
Murray Plumb & Murray
P O Box 9785
Portland, ME 04104-5085
Attorneys for defendants:
Judith A. S. Metcalf, Esq., (orally)
Eaton, Peabody, Bradford & Veague, P.A.
P O Box 9
Brunswick, ME 04011
(for Northport Village Corporation)
Randolph A. Mailloux, Esq.
Moser & Mailloux, P.A.
151 High Street
Belfast, ME 04915
(for Town of Northport)
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1}. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 111
(1993) provides: § 111. General qualifications A person who meets the
following requirements may vote in any election in a municipality. 1.Citizenship.
He must be a citizen of the United States. 2. Age. He must be at least 18
years of age. 3. Residence. He must have established and maintain a voting
residence in that municipality. 4. Registration. He must be registered to
vote in that municipality. 5. Enrollment. He must be enrolled in a party
in that municipality to vote at a caucus, convention or primary election,
unless otherwise permitted by a political party pursuant to section 340.
21-A M.R.S.A. § 112 (Supp. 1997) defines "residence" as "that
place where the person has established a fixed and principal home to which
the person, whenever temporarily absent, intends to return."
|