Opinion ID: 2310691
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Yusem's Challenge

Text: [¶ 10] Yusem presented no evidence of the property's just value and no evidence that his property was overvalued. [7] Indeed, he admitted that he had purchased the property for more than its current assessment. He presented no evidence of fraud or dishonesty. Nor did he present persuasive evidence that his property was assessed at a higher value than those properties in the area that were similar to his. [8] Instead, Yusem relied upon perceived errors in the assessor's methods to make his case. [¶ 11] Specifically, Yusem argued that the assessment was illegal because the assessor did not articulate a review of those factors that may be relevant to a determination of just value pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 701-A. [9] Section 701-A requires an assessor to consider all relevant factors in determining just value. 36 M.R.S.A. § 701-A. Those factors will include, where relevant to the assessment, the effect upon value of any enforceable restrictions to which the use of the land may be subjected, current use, physical depreciation, functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence. Id. [10] Yusem argues that the assessor failed to consider each factor separately as applied to his property. Yusem did not, however, demonstrate that the consideration of any of the factors would have resulted in a reduced determination of just value of his property. When it is alleged that the assessor failed to consider any of the section 701-A factors, the taxpayer must demonstrate how the failure to discretely consider those factors resulted in a substantial overvaluation. Glenridge Dev. Co. v. City of Augusta, 662 A.2d 928, 932 (Me.1995). Moreover, the statutory mandate that certain factors be considered does not equate to a mandate that each factor be applied to each property. See Pepperman v. Town of Rangeley, 1999 ME 157, ¶ 4, 739 A.2d 851, 853. The body determining just value must determine whether the factor at issue is relevant to the property before it. See id. [¶ 12] In the final analysis, Yusem argues that he is entitled to an abatement, not because the perceived errors in the assessment resulted in the determination of an unjust or discriminatory assessment of his property, but solely because he has identified what he believes to be a flaw in the assessor's method of establishing the property's just value. In other words, notwithstanding Yusem's inability to demonstrate that the result was other than fair and just, he argues that he is entitled to an abatement because the process by which that result was reached may have been flawed. [¶ 13] Yusem misapprehends his burden before the Commissioners. Impeachment of the assessor's methodology alone is insufficient to meet that burden. City of Waterville v. Waterville Homes, Inc., 655 A.2d 365, 366 (Me.1995). The taxpayer must demonstrate that the property is overrated. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Inhabitants of Presque Isle, 150 Me. 181, 107 A.2d 475, 477 (1954). Because the Commissioners' responsibility was to assure that the constitutional elements of taxation were present, their task was to determine whether the Town had failed to assign a value to Yusem's property that was fair (nondiscriminatory) and just (in line with the fair market value of the property). See Chase v. Town of Machiasport, 1998 ME 260, ¶ 11, 721 A.2d 636, 640. [11] To do so, the Commissioners would have to compare the assessed value of the lot with a value demonstrated by Yusem to more accurately reflect a fair and just value. Yusem's focused attack on the assessor's methodology left the Commissioners without the evidence necessary to undertake the comparison. Thus, he failed to meet his burden. [¶ 14] Notwithstanding the deficiency in his presentation, Yusem argues that he is entitled to an abatement because his impeachment of the assessor's methods has demonstrated that the assessment was illegal. We reject Yusem's attempt to recast his challenge to the assessor's methodology as a claim of illegality. [12] Such an approach would reward a taxpayer with an abatement from an assessment that represents a fair and just determination of value if the taxpayer points to a gap or perceived flaw in the assessment methodology. Because that approach would be entirely contrary to our established law, we have made it clear that a taxpayer may not meet his burden solely by attacking the methodology of the assessor. Glenridge Dev. Co., 662 A.2d at 931. [¶ 15] In sum, when the taxpayer fails to provide the Board with evidence of just value sufficient to convince the Commissioners or Board that an error may have occurred, the Commissioners have no basis for inquiring further into the assessor's method of determining just value. Waterville Homes, Inc., 655 A.2d at 367. Because Yusem failed to present evidence that the assessment was manifestly wrong, there was no reason for the Commissioners to scrutinize the manner by which the assessment was derived.