Opinion ID: 2353084
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Finality

Text: [¶ 11] The Superior Court vacated the decisions of the Board as to both tax abatements and remanded for further action by the City. Although the court did order that the City must grant abatements in each year, it did not determine the amount of the abatements, leaving that to the City. Thus, the City must undertake a review of the assessments and calculate an abatement. Its actions will involve evaluation of evidence, mathematical calculations, and use of the Board's collective judgment to assign appropriate values to the Peakers' land. In other words, the matter is by no means finally resolved by the Superior Court's judgment. [¶ 12] We have long held that appeals from court orders remanding a matter to an administrative agency for further action are interlocutory appeals that we will not address on the merits until the action on the remand has been completed. Malonson v. Town of Berwick, 2003 ME 148, ¶ 2, 838 A.2d 338, 338 (alteration omitted) (quotation marks omitted). In the few exceptions to this rule that we have allowed, we have done so only where the action on remand would be essentially ministerial, such as a remand order to make a specific amendment to a judgment . . . or where the remand addresses a procedural or ancillary matter distinct from the subject of the Law Court appeal. Doggett v. Town of Gouldsboro, 2002 ME 175, ¶ 8, 812 A.2d 256, 259. [¶ 13] In the matter before us, the Superior Court remanded the tax abatement request to the Biddeford Board of Assessment Review to grant such reasonable abatement as the [B]oard thinks proper. This is not simply a ministerial task. It requires the Board to assess the proper amount of the abatement. Furthermore, this is not a collateral matter; whether to grant the abatement is the central issue in this case and on appeal. Finally, as it stands, the Board's findings may be insufficient for review by this Court. [6] A remand will allow the City to review the facts, exercise its judgment, within the parameters of the Superior Court's remand, and articulate findings that are sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. The entry is: Appeal dismissed as interlocutory.