Opinion ID: 2310691
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Burden of Proof and Standard of Review of the Assessment

Text: [¶ 7] Because the Superior Court acted as an intermediate appellate court, we review the decision of the Commissioners directly for an abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Town of Southwest Harbor v. Harwood, 2000 ME 213, ¶ 6, 763 A.2d 115, 117. [5] [¶ 8] When a taxpayer appeals from a Town's denial of an abatement, the Commissioners begin their review of the assessment with the presumption that the assessor's valuation of the property is valid. Id. ¶ 7, 763 A.2d at 117. To overcome that presumption, the taxpayer seeking an abatement from the Commissioners has the initial burden of presenting `credible, affirmative evidence' to meet his or her burden of persuading the [Commissioners] that the assessor's valuation was `manifestly wrong.' Id. ¶ 8, 763 A.2d at 117 (citations omitted). If, but only if, the taxpayer meets that burden, the Commissioners must engage in an independent determination of fair market value ... based on a consideration of all relevant evidence of just value. Quoddy Realty Corp. v. City of Eastport, 1998 ME 14, ¶ 5, 704 A.2d 407, 408. [¶ 9] To meet the initial burden of showing that the assessment was manifestly wrong, the taxpayer must demonstrate that (1) the judgment of the assessor was irrational or so unreasonable in light of the circumstances that the property was substantially overvalued and an injustice resulted; (2) there was unjust discrimination; or (3) the assessment was fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal. Muirgen Props., Inc. v. Town of Boothbay, 663 A.2d 55, 58 (Me.1995). [6] We will vacate the Commissioners' conclusion that the taxpayer failed to meet this burden `only if the record compels a contrary conclusion to the exclusion of any other inference.' Weekley v. Town of Scarborough, 676 A.2d 932, 934 (Me.1996) (citations omitted).