Conte v. Town of York

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: October 5, 2017
• Docket: YORap-17-009
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-17-009

LUKE CONTE,

Plaintiff

v. ORDER

TOWN OF YORK,

Defendant

This matter was heard with respect to an SOB appeal filed by Mr. Conte. At issue

relates to the assessed value on his property located in York, Maine. As the Town

correctly identifies the burden of proof is upon Mr. Conte to prove that the assessed value

on his property is manifestly wrong. Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough, 2014 ME 57.

The Court's role in this review is to only vacate the Board of Assessment Review's

decision if it is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, or if the record compels

a different conclusion to the exclusion of any other reasonable decision.

A review of the record indicates that Mr. Conte purchased the property on

December 29, 2015 for $552,250, which was within $150 of the April 1, 2016 assessed value

of $552,400. The abatement sought by Mr. Conte is for approximately $16,400 less than

the $552,400 assessed value which, as the Town mathematically notes, is a reduction of

less than 10%.

1 Real Estate value appraisal and assessment is not an exact science. It is based

typically on evaluations of comparable properties. This is well recognized both in the

history of expert testimony presented to this Court in which real estate appraisers

typically testify that there is a 10% to 15% range of error in their calculations, which

ultimately has been codified at 36 M.R.S. §848-A, which indicates that in any proceedings

related to a protested assessment, it is sufficient defense of the assessment that it is

accurate within reasonable limits of practicality except when a proven deviation of 10%

or more from the relevant assessment ratio of the municipality or primary assessing area

exists.

The Court concludes that the assessed value that Mr. Conte has not established

that the assessed value on his property is manifestly wrong, while his assessment

technique revealed a number that was approximately 3% less than the number assessed

by the Town. The Court cannot conclude that that evidence compels a contrary

conclusion to the exclusion of any other inference which is the standard for review

required by this Court.

Accordingly, the appeal is denied.

The Clerk may incorporate this order by reference on the docket.

Dated: October ~2017 John H. O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court

ENTERED ON THE DOCKET ON: