Opinion ID: 2056655
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Court's Authority to Establish Municipal Boundary Lines

Text: [¶ 11] Count V of Boothby's complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §§ 5951-5963 (2008), is a clear and unequivocal invitation to the Superior Court to establish the Orland/Penobscot boundary line in a location other than that marked by the blue blazed line that both towns accept as the true boundary. [4] Boothby argues that the location of the boundary on the face of the earth, like the location of any property boundary, is a question of fact subject to judicial determination. See Conary v. Perkins, 464 A.2d 972, 975 (Me.1983) (What the boundaries are, as ascertained from the language of a deed, is a question of law; where these boundaries are on the face of the earth is a question of fact.). [¶ 12] In assessing the legal sufficiency of Boothby's complaint, we review it de novo in the light most favorable to [Boothby], accepting the material facts it alleges as true, to determine whether [it] could entitle [Boothby] to relief on some theory. Costain, 2008 ME 142, ¶ 1 n. 1, 954 A.2d at 1052 (quotation marks omitted). In this case, Boothby's theory of property ownership is founded in large part upon his contention that the current boundary between the towns is erroneous. [¶ 13] Boothby admits, however, that, as the Attorney General has stated, [i]t is well-established in this State that the Legislature alone has the authority to alter the boundaries of towns. Op. Me. Att'y Gen. 79-22; see Inhabitants of Fayette v. Inhabitants of Readfield, 132 Me. 328, 329, 170 A. 513, 514 (1934). Furthermore, pursuant to the clear process established by the Legislature in 30-A M.R.S. § 2852, the commissioners appointed by the court at the request of a municipality, and not the court itself, determine the location of a municipal boundary line. In that statutory process, [t]he only power and discretion of the Court . . . is to ascertain and determine if the report [of the commissioners] is legally correct in form and if all the proceedings have been in compliance with the statute, or to correct an error where on the face of the record it is perfectly apparent that the commissioners went beyond the authority given them by the statute. Inhabitants of Fayette, 132 Me. at 330, 170 A. at 514 (quotation marks omitted). The statute does not describe any situation in which the court has the power to actually determine the line. [¶ 14] Accordingly, because the Legislature has the exclusive authority to create and alter municipal boundaries, and has established a specific process by which only municipalities themselves may seek judicial resolution of boundary disputes, and then only through the appointment of commissioners, it is apparent that a court lacks the authority to determine the location of a municipal boundary based on a citizen's complaint. If it were otherwise, any citizen could simply bypass the statutory process created by the Legislature by filing a declaratory judgment action. [¶ 15] Boothby's argument that he only seeks to have the line physically located and not altered is unavailing. It would make little sense to conclude that the Legislature intended to permit private citizens to litigate the placement of municipal boundaries through an ordinary declaratory judgment action, while restricting the municipalities themselves to the stringent procedural requirements of section 2852. If such private actions were allowed to proceed, towns would potentially be subject over time to a series of lawsuits and resulting judgments changing their boundaries, with all of the collateral consequences that would entail. Because we conclude that the Legislature intended for section 2852 to be the sole means for judicial resolution of boundary disputes between municipalities, Boothby's complaint for declaratory judgment was properly dismissed. See Morrill v. Me. Tpk. Auth., 2009 ME 116, ¶ 5, 983 A.2d 1065, 1067 (The underlying purpose of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. (quotation marks omitted)).