Acadia Hospital Corp. v. Town of Hampden

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: August 17, 2017
• Docket: PENap-17-014
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT PENOBSCOT, SS. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO AP 17-014

ACADIA HOSPITAL CORP.,

Plaintiff, v. ORDER TOWN OF J fAMPDEN,

Defendant, and

ACADIA HEALTHCARE, INC.

Party-in-Interest

Tn this 808 appeal, Acadia Hospital appeals from a ruling of the Town of

Hampden Board of Assessment Review upholding the Town's assessment of a service

charge imposed upon Acadia.

Acadia owns certain tax-exempt property in Hampden, Maine which it leases to

an unrelated third party, Sweetser. According to the lease that has been made a part of

the record, Sweetser is to use the premises as a mental health residential treatment

facility. A town ordinance establishes an annual service charge to be levied against all

residential property that is otherwise exempt from state or municipal taxation and is

used to provide rental income. The service charge does not apply to student housing

however.

The record on appeal is sparse. Although the parties discuss certain relevant facts

in their briefs, the record does not contain many of the facts upon which they base their

arguments. From the lease, which is part of the record, the Court can conclude that the

premises were used as a residential treatment facility, but little more. From that

proposition, the Court can also infer that the clients spend the night there, but no additional detail is present in the record. Although it is the plaintiff's responsibility to

provide Lhe Court with an adequat~ record for review, M.R. Civ. P 80B(e), the

municipality must assure that a sufficient record is created to permit judicial review.

Sanborn v. Town of Elliot, 425 A.2d 629, 630-3 (Me. 1981). It is not clear to the Court

whether a record of testimony at the hearing before the l3oard exists, or whether the

plaintiff, or perhaps both parties, decided that it was nol necessary to include testimony

in the record on appeal.

In its Decision of May 4, 2017, the Board stated: "The issue presented in this

appeal is whether the property in question, being owned by Acadia Hospital Corp., and

leased to Sweetser which provides housing for its students/ clients who are transported

daily to the Sweetser school in Belfast qualifies for exemption from the Town of

Hampden Service Charge Ordinance." Although the parties seem to interpret this as a

finding that what is described as an issue is actually a fact, it isn't particularly dear to

the Court because the issue of whether the property's use satisfied the exception was

then ignored in the remainder of the Decision. The only analysis contained in the

Decision is the conclusion that the property is subject to the service charge because

"although it is a residential property owned by a tax exempt organization it is used to

provide rental income to that organi,1;ation." This states the obvious and in no way

addresses the issue that the Board described as being presented. Did the I3oard ignore

the student housing exception or did it decide the issue without providing any analysis

whatsoever? Although the Court is aware of the principle that if the appealing party

does not request additional findings the reviewing court should infer that the tribunal

found all facts necessary to support its decision, the sparse record and inadequate

Decision in this appeal form an inadequate basis for appellate review. As a result, the Board's Order is vacated and the matter is remanded for further

proceedings, which could include the creation or preparation• of a suitable record and a

Decision that includes a statement of findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or

basis for the findings and conclusions, in conformity with M.R.S. 30-A § 2691(3)(E).

Dated: August 17, 2017 w ~~:~, JUSTICE, SUPERIOR COURT '

ORDER/JUDGMENT E~'Tt tED IN THE COURT DOCKET ON: ~ ·] - I]

1 The patties can also proceed by submitting stipulations pursuant to M.R. Civ . P. 80B(e)(2) .