STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
Sagadahoc, ss Civil Action
INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF WEST BATH,
Plaintiff
V. Docket No. mz'-12-S8
REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT NO. 1, ET AL.,
Defendants
ORDER AFTER CONFERENCE OF COUNSEL
Counsel for the remaining parties-Town of West Bath, Regional School Unit
No. 1, and the City of Bath-appeared in chambers November 17, 2014 for a conference
of counsel regarding the proposed settlement of this case.
The key terms of the proposed settlement are outlined in e-mail correspondence
that counsel shared with the court. However, the settlement is subject to consideration
and approval by the Bath City Council, which is scheduled to take up the matter at its
meeting December S, 2014. The City administration and the City's legal counsel are
recommending the proposal. In anticipation of the December S meeting, counsel for the
parties will be working on settlement-related documents between now and then, so that,
if settlement is approved, a stipulated docket entry can be filed within days of the
approval.
Based on the foregoing, the court is postponing the trial scheduled to begin
December 1, 2014. If the settlement is not approved, the court anticipates rescheduling
the trial during January or February 2015. Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this
~ Order by reference in the docket.
Dated: November 1f, 2014
Justice, Superior Court
2 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
5AGr--AMH-Dl--lo-Jtt INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF WEST BATH,
V. Docket No. CV-12-38
REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT NO. 1, CITY OF BATH, INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF ARROWSIC, and INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF WOOLWICH,
This matter came before the court on July 8, 2014 for a status conference with
counsel to discuss the future course of events in this case. Following the court's order
on the motions for summary judgment, the court must address the continuing
obligations of each of the parties, ADR, discovery, and scheduling iss_ues. As discussed
with counsel, the court orders as follows:
1. Towns of Arrowsic and Woolwich. The Towns of Arrowsic and Woolwich have both moved to be excused from this case following the court's order granting summary judgment in their favor on West Bath's equitable claims. Arrowsic and Woolwich will remain parties to this case for purposes of West Bath's declaratory judgment claim. However, the court has ruled that West Bath cannot recover directly from the Towns of Arrowsic and Woolwich. At their request, counsel for Arrowsic and Woolwich are excused from participation ih and attendance at all future proceedings in this case.
2. Deadline for Mediation. As discussed at the conference, the court is ordering the parties to attend mediation. The parties must complete mediation by ~eptember 15, 2014. The court reserves the right to order the parties to attend a judicial settlement conference if mediation is unsuccessful.
3. Discovery Deadline. Discovery will resume immediately. The deadline for discovery is November 1, 2014. 4. Discovery Limits and Timing. The City of Bath, RSU 1, and West Bath have all moved to increase the default limit of five depositions allowed under the discovery rules. The City of Bath and RSU 1 will be allowed a combined total of 15 depositions. West Bath will be allowed a total of 12 depositions. No more than 5 depositions may be taken by West Bath and no more than 5 may be taken by Defendants before mediation is completed.
5. Conference of Counsel. The clerk will schedule a conference of counsel to occur in October in Portland for the convenience of counsel and the court. The court will address final scheduling issues such as timing for the exchange of witness and exhibit lists and any remaining issues at this conference.
6. Trial Dates. This case is set for a bench trial on December 1-5, 2014. The parties shall provide the court with their proposed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw on the first day of trial.
7. City of Bath's Motion for Reconsideration. Counsel for the City of Bath has requested an enlargement of time to file a motion to reconsider the court's ruling on the issue of whether RSU 1 applied the proper cost-sharing formula during the four fiscal years in question. Bath's motion for reconsideration shall be filed by July 25, 2014. The court will notify plaintiff West Bath if a response to the motion is necessary.
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this
Order by reference in the docket.
Dated: July 10, 2014 A.M. Horton Justice, Superior Court STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COUR'I'
Sagadahoc, ss. '• ! ' I V, ... -- - .,_---.- ~~·, .~.·1 A• ' 1 ~.1// -.,·-~ ·~y')ll3 ·' . ; I l
INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF WEST BATH Plaintiff
v. Civil Action Docket No. BA TSC-CV-12-S 8
REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT 1, et als.
ORDER ON MOTIONS
In this case, Plaintiff Inhabitants of the Town ofWest Bath ["West Bath']
claims that Defendant Regional School Unit No. 1 ("RSU1") has incorrectly allocated
and assessed RSU's operating costs borne locally by West Bath and RSUI's other
participating municipalities. 1 As a result of the error, which spans four fiscal years,
West Bath claims to have been assessed and to have paid over to RSU 1 a total of about
$1.9 million more than it should have, had local costs been correctly calculated. West
Bath seeks to recover the alleged overpayments from RSU L West Bath claims further
that the three municipal Defendants: Inhabitants of the Town of Arrowsic ("Arrowsic"),
Inhabitants of the Town ofWoolwich ("Woolwich", and City ofBath ("Bath") were
assessed too little by the same total amount, and should reimburse West Bath in the
amount of their windfalL
The Defendants say in reply that West Bath has flied its claims too late, that it is
not the proper claimant, and that this is a wrong without any remedy.
1 Defendants do not concede that the wrong formula was used, but they do not argue that the
correct formula was used, during the four years at issue. Nor do the Defendants deny West Bath's assertion that the correct formula began to be used in 2012. In any event, this Order takes West Bath's material allegations to be true for purposes of the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See Discussion, I Standard of Review, infra p. 5.
1 All four Defendants have filed motions to dismiss West Bath's First Amended
Complaint. Bath and RSU1 had previously filed motions to dismiss West Bath's
initially filed Complaint. Additionally, West Bath has filed a Motion to Exclude
directed to materials that Bath and RSU 1 have filed with their motions to dismiss.
Oral argument on the then fully briefed motions was held May 7, 2013. A
week later, on May 14, 2013, West Bath filed a Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint, which the Defendants have opposed. The court has elected to
defer ruling on all motions until briefing on West Bath's motion to amend was
complete, and to decide West Bath's motion without oral argument. See M.R. Civ. P.
7(b )(7).
For the reasons stated herein, the court denies the several pending Motions to
Dismiss, grants the Motion to Exclude, and grants the Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint.
Factual And Procedural Background
RSU 1 is a "regional school unit" as that term is defined in 20-A M.R.S. § 1, and
is responsible for the operation of public schools in the municipalities of Arrow sic, Bath,
Phippsburg, West Bath and Woolwich (all ofwhich are referred to in RSUl's enabling
legislation and hereinafter as "participating members").
RSU's enabling legislation, Private and Special Law 2007, Chapter 25, entitled
"An Act to Permit Public Schools in the Lower Kennebec River Area to Regionalize To
Achieve Efficiency and Improve Quality" (hereinafter "LD 910"), was enacted in
September 2007. Pursuant to LD 910, the existing school administrative units of the
five participating members were merged into and organized as a regional school unit as
of July 1, 2008.
2 LD 910 includes a specific cost-sharing formula under which RSUl's "local
costs" are to be allocated among the five participating members. Section 11 ofLD 910
specifies that the "local costs" of operating RSU 1 are to be allocated according to the
formula in that section, rather than according to a statutory cost-sharing formula that
applies generally to other school administrative units statewide.
The state statutory formula referred to in section 11 is codified in the 2005
Essential Programs and Services Funding Act, 20-A M.R.S. §§ 15670-15696 (2005),
(the "EPS Act"). The EPS Act identifies "essential program services" [EPSJ, and
provides for the costs of such services [EPS costs] to be allocated according to a
formula codified at 20-A M.R.S. § 15688(3-A). However, all school administrative units
also have costs outside those designated as EPS costs, and these so-called "over EPS
costs" are also calculated and allocated within each school administrative unit.
Section 11 of LD 9102 says that the section 15688(3-A) formula for allocating
EPS costs does not apply, and that RSU l's "local costs" are to be allocated among the
2 Section 11, ofLD 910 states:
Sec. 11. Cost sharing; changes in cost sharing. For the purpose of local cost sharing, the provisions of the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 20-A, section 15688, subsection .'3-A do not apply to the participating members. The local costs of the district must be allocated to the participating members as follows:
1. Valuation. One-third must be allocated based on the property fiscal capacity of each participating member;
2. Pupil count. One-third must be allocated based on the most recent calendar year average pupil count of each participating member; and
3. Population. One-third must be allocated based on the population of each participating member as determined by the latest Federal Decennial Census or Federal Estimated Census.
In fiscal year 2008-09, the share oflocal costs that the district allocates to a participating member must be reduced by the amount of funds the participating member has transferred to the district pursuant to this Act to the extent the
3 participating members according to the formula specified in section 11. The term "local
costs" is not defined, but the allocation formula in section 11 does not differentiate
between EPS and over EPS costs.
It is undisputed that, before the commencement of every fiscal year since RSU1's
formation, the budget for RSU 1 has been prepared and initially approved by the RSU 1
Board of Directors, and then subjected to an annual budget referendum held in each of
the participating members. (Pl.'s Amend. Compl. ~ 13.) Once the annual budget has
been fully approved, RSU 1 has applied a formula to calculate every participating
member's share of the forthcoming fiscal year budget, and issued assessments to each of
the five participating members in the amount of their calculated shares. Each
municipality then raises the necessary funds, presumably through tax assessments
against municipal taxpayers, and remits funds in the amount of the assessment to RSU 1.
West Bath's First Amended Complaint alleges that RSU1 incorrectly allocated
its local costs among the participating members for each of the four fiscal years within
the period beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2012. (Pl.'s Amend. Compl.
~~IS, 21-29.) Specifically, West Bath alleges that RSU1 used the inapplicable
statewide statutory formula in 20-A M.R.S. § 12688(3-A) to allocate RSU1's EPS costs,
when it should have used the formula mandated by section 11 to allocate all local costs.
funds are not allocated to expenditures of the participating ITiember.
After S budget years, the district shall report to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over education matters on its experience with determining the contributions of the participating members for local costs under this Act and on other methods of determining the contributions that might be preferable within the district. The other methods, if any, may include the results of a nonbinding election or as applicable town meeting votes in each participating municipality. The method of sharing the local costs of the district may be changed after the first S budget years of the district in the manner provided by the general laws, or, if the general laws at any time do not permit a change in cost sharing, by district referendum called by the board of directors.
4 (Pl.'s Amend. Compl. ~~ 21,2S, 25, 27, 29.) As a result ofthis error, West Bath
alleges, RSU1 overcharged West Bath a total of$1,919,380 in total local costs during
the four fiscal years from 2008 through 2012. (Pl.'s Amend. Compl. ~ S1; see also id. ~~
22, 24. 26, 28, 29.) West Bath further alleges that on April 2S, 2012 the RSUI Board of
Directors voted to correct this error prospectively and to use the formula mandated by
LD 910 in allocating all local costs for the 2012-lS fiscal budget. (Pl.'s Amend. Compl.
~ S2.
None of the foregoing is materially in dispute for purposes of the present
motions. The Defendants do not appear to deny West Bath's contention that local costs
were incorrectly allocated during the four budget years at issue.
The Defendants' motions to dismiss essentially make three arguments. First,
the Defendants say that West Bath's claims are untimely, because West Bath was
required to seek judicial review of each incorrect assessment within the SO-day deadline
governing appeals of municipal action under M.R. Civ. P. 80B(b ). Second, the
Defendants say West Bath lacks standing to assert any of its claims because West Bath
in its capacity of tax collector has not suffered any loss or legally cognizable injury
sufficient to confer standing. Third, the Defendants say that this situation involves an
alleged wrong without a remedy-they assert that there is nothing that can be done to
reimburse West Bath for the overassessed amounts.
Discussion I. Standard cif Review
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the
complaint. McAfee v. Cole, 6S7 A.2d 46S, 465 (Me. 1994). The court examines "the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth
elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief
5 pursuant to some legal theory." Id. When testing the complaint under M.R. Civ. P.
12(b )(6), the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted. Id.
"Dismissal is warranted when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is not entitled
to relief under any set offacts that he might prove in support of his claim." Johanson v.
Dunnington, 2001 ME 169, ~ 5, 785 A.2d 1244. A motion to dismiss may raise a statute
oflimitations defense if, as is the case here, the facts giving rise to the defense appear on
the face of the summons and complaint. See State v. Milam, 468 A.2d 620, 621 (Me.
1983).
West Bath's Motion to Exclude must be addressed as a threshold matter,
because the outcome of that motion determines the extent to which the court will
consider the extrinsic materials submitted by Bath and RSU 1 with their motions.
II. Plaintiffs Motion To Exclude
The general rule is that only the facts alleged in the complaint may be
considered on a motion to dismiss. See Moody v. State Liquor and Lottery Comm'n, 2004
ME 20, ~ 8, 843 A.2d 43, 47. However, Rule 12(b) states that "[i]f, on a motion
asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not
excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment." M.R.
Civ. P. 12(b).
Whether the court accepts or excludes material outside the pleadings in deciding
a Rule 12(b )( 6) motion to dismiss is a discretionary determination. In this case, for the
court to accept and consider Bath's 96 additional exhibits and RSU1's addendum, not to
mention whatever additional materials West Bath would in fairness have to be given
leave to file in response, would create a full-blown Rule 56 summary judgment process
6 replete with a voluminous record, without the benefit of the filings required by Rule 56
to help narrow or eliminate factual issues.
In their oppositions to Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Exhibits, Bath and RSU1
correctly point out that Maine courts recognize an exception that "allows a court to
consider official public documents, documents that are central to the plaintiffs claim,
and documents referred to in the complaint, without converting a motion to dismiss into
a motion for summary judgment when the authenticity of such documents is not
challenged." Moody v. State Liquor & Lottery Comm'n, supra, 2004 ME 20 at~~ 8-10, 843
A.2d at 47.
Be that as it may, the more than 100 exhibits that the City of Bath and RSU1 are
asking the court to consider are too much freight for motions to dismiss to carry under
the Moody exception. The court grants the Motion to Exclude, declines to consider the
extrinsic material offered by Bath and RSU 1 for purposes of their motions to dismiss,
and limits review of all pending motions to dismiss to the face of the pleadings,
including West Bath's proposed Second Amended Complaint. Even though that
pleading is only a proposed pleading at this point, the court may consider it in the
context of the Defendants' motions to dismiss, to determine whether the amendments
reflected in the proposed Second Amended Complaint would be futile.
III. Difendants' Motions To Dismiss and Plaintijf's Proposed Second Amended Complaint
In their motions to dismiss, the Defendants make three primary arguments.
First, they say West Bath's claims are untimely under M.R. Civ. P. soB. Second, they
say West Bath lacks standing, and that any such claim has to be brought by West Bath
taxpayers. Third, they say West Bath's claims must be dismissed because there is no
available remedy for the overpayment. Each argument is addressed as follows:
7 Difendants' Rule BOB Argument: Defendants assert that West Bath's cause of
action is governed by Rule soB of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and, therefore, is
untimely. Specifically, the Defendants assert that, although there is no statutory
provision for review ofRSU1's assessments, judicial review was available, and was
required to be sought within 30 days ofwhen the assessments were made, under the
provisions of Rule soB(b ), because the relief West Bath seeks was and is available by
law in the nature of mandamus.
Maine Rule ofCivil Procedure SOB(a) provides as follows:
When review by the Superior Court, whether by appeal or otherwise, of any action or failure or refusal to act by a governmental agency, including any department, board, commission, or officer, is provided by statute or is otherwise available by law, proceedings for such review shall, except to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of a statute and except for a review of final agency action or the failure or refusal of an agency to act brought pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001 et seq. of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act as provided by Rule soC, be governed by these Rules of Civil Procedure as modified by this rule
M.R. Civ. P. soB(a).
Because there is no statutory right of appeal in the case at bar, any review of
RSU 1's cost allocation and budget assessments for the four fiscal years at issue must be
"otherwise available by law" to fall within the rubric of Rule SOB. "Review is deemed
'otherwise available by law' if it is in the nature of that formerly available under the
common law extraordinary writs, such as certiorari, mandamus or prohibition, adapted
to current conditions." Lyons v. Bd. rifDir. ofSch. Admin. Dist. No. 43, 503 A.2d 233, 236
(Me.19S6).
At oral argument, on May 7, 2013, the court indicated that it leans in favor of
the Defendants' position that review ofRSUI's budget assessment is and was,
throughout the relevant period, available at least in the nature of the common law writ
8 of mandamus, if not the other extraordinary writs. See Casco N. Bank, N.A. v. Bd. ofTrs.
ofVanBurenHosp. Dist., 601 A.2d 10S5, 10S7 (Me. 1992). Reliefin the nature ofthat
formerly available through a writ of mandamus is available in a Rule soB action to
compel a government agency or official to act, provided that the act sought to be
compelled is ministerial, not discretionary, in nature. See zd., citing Ray v. Town of
Camden, 5SS A.2d 912,913 (Me.19S7). In this case, LD 910 gives RSU1 no discretion in
deciding which formula to use in allocating local costs among the participating
members. Thus, West Bath could have invoked judicial review under Rule soB, asking
the court to vacate the incorrect assessments and to compel RSU 1 to base its
assessments upon the correct formula under LD 910.
Moreover, the court agrees with the Defendants that, because the erroneously
calculated assessments came to an end with fiscal year 2011-12, which in turn ended
June SO, 2012, and because the assessment for the current fiscal year is correct (and, it is
hoped, will remain correct in future years), the declaratory judgment remedy invoked by
West Bath for purposes of reviewing the validity of the assessments likely does not
apply. The declaratory judgment remedy has a prospective focus, in that it typically
addresses an ongoing justiciable controversy as to which the parties need guidance for
the future. As the Law Court has noted, "a declaratory judgment action cannot be used
to revive a cause of action that is otherwise barred by the passage of time." Sold, Inc. v.
Town of Gorham, 2005 ME 24, ~ 10, S6S A.2d 172, 176, citing Cline v. Maine Coast
Nordic, 1999 ME 72, ~ 13, 72S A.2d 6S6, 6S9. Moreover, the declaratory judgment
statute does not enlarge or create jurisdiction. See Hodgdon v. Campbell, 411 A.2d 667,
671 (Me. 19SO) ("declaratory judgment is a remedial device and does not enlarge the
jurisdiction of the court.")
9 It is the fact that the dispute here is entirely confined to the past that
distinguishes the case mainly relied on by West Bath to justify proceeding on a
declaratory judgment basis, Inhabitants ofStonington v. Inhabitants of Deer Isle, 403 A.2d
11S1 (Me. 1979). That case involved a continuing dispute over cost allocation, so, at
least as to the plaintiffTown's request for declaratory and injunctive relief, there was
no past final action to which the Rule soB(b) deadline might apply. Whether the Town
of Stonington could have recovered on its claim for reimbursement as to past years was
an issue not reached by the Law Court; since each year involved a discrete budgeting
and cost allocation process, it is entirely possible that the Town's claim for
reimbursement might have been deemed barred, had the Law Court reached it.
However, the Law Court has recognized that the Rule SOB deadline is subject to
a limited exception, under which the court may entertain a Rule soB appeal filed after
the deadline, when the delay is due to extraordinary circumstances: "The standard of
excusable neglect is strict; extensions of time for filing notices of appeal should be
limited to extraordinary cases. Further, when the neglect is that of the party charged to
act, some 'extraordinary circumstance' must be proved to justify the neglect." Haskell v.
Phinney, 460 A.2d 1354, 1360 (Me. 19S3) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Despite agreeing with much of the substance of the Defendants' Rule SOB
argument, for several reasons the court does not agree with their conclusion that this
action must be dismissed.
First, although West Bath has not alleged or otherwise pleaded "extraordinary
circumstances" in its first Amended Complaint, there are allusions to circumstances
that might be construed in that light, see Pl.'s Amend. Compl. ~ 32. Moreover, West
Bath's counsel during oral argument indicated that West Bath had made efforts to
10 investigate whether the correct formula was being used, and was given false or
misleading information in response. Also, West Bath's recently filed Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint does allege that the "extraordinary circumstances"
exception to the Rule soB deadline provision applies.
Second, the Defendants' premise that the entire case is subject to dismissal for
failure to file within the Rule SOB(b) deadline is not necessarily correct. Not all ofWest
Bath's claims would necessitate a Rule soB review ofthe validity ofRSUI's
assessments. Many ofWest Bath's claims in both the First Amended Complaint and the
proposed Second Amended Complaint are equitable claims against the defendant
municipalities rather than against RSUl. Restitution based on unjust enrichment
and/ or mistake is clearly recognized as a cause of action. 3 For example, can West Bath
obtain restitution based on unjust enrichment from the City of Bath without necessarily
seeking to invalidate RSUI's underlying assessments through Rule SOB review? At this
early stage, the court is not prepared to answer that question in the negative. Thus,
even were West Bath not alleging a basis for avoiding dismissal for failure to meet the
Rule SOB(b) deadline, some ofits claims would likely proceed at least to the point of
surviving motions to dismiss.
Difendants' Standing Argument: The Defendants also argue that West Bath lacks
standing because it simply acted as a tax collector and has not itself sustained any
cognizable loss or injury, relying mainly on the Law Court decisions in Town ofActon v.
McGary, 356 A.2d 700 (Me. 1976) and Berry v. Daigle, S22 A.2d S20 (Me. 1974).
3 However, West Bath's claim for quantum meruit does not appear to fit. A quantum meruit claim is a claim for payment of the fair value of services, goods or something else ofvalue rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant under circumstances that justify an expectation of payment. The concept of a quantum meruit claim in which the plaintiff seeks payment ofmoney for a payment of money previously made does not really fit the theory. However, because it has not been challenged on this basis, the claim will be let stand for the time being.
11 However, those decisions do not lend the support to the Defendants' position that the
Defendants assert.
The McGary case involved a challenge by municipalities and individual taxpayers
to the constitutionality of the State property tax statute. The Law Court held that
none of the plaintiffs had standing based on what was then the law of Maine: a tax paid
voluntarily could not later be disputed or challenged. Thus, the individual taxpayers
lacked standing to challenge the statute because they had paid the tax voluntarily. See
.356 A.2d at 705. ("[R]egardless ofwhether the State property tax be constitutional or
unconstitutional, plaintiffs Reed and Logan are not entitled to be repaid, in whole or in
part, the monies voluntarily paid by them as taxes.") (citations omitted).
Similarly, as to the plaintiff municipalities, the court held that, because the
individual taxpayers within the plaintiffmunicipalities had paid voluntarily and
therefore would have no entitlement to any refund, "the plaintiff municipalities would
thus have no justification to withhold the escrow monies from the Treasurer of State on
the grounds that said monies should be paid back to the owners of the estates from
whom the municipalities collected the monies .. " Id. at 707.
In 1981 the Maine Legislature effectively overruled the principle oflaw on
which McGary depends by enacting .36 M.R.S. § 152: "A taxpayer may pay any tax,
make any deposit or file any bond at any time without forfeiting any right to apply for a
refund or an abatement or to seek review ofthe validity of the tax. No such tax, bond or
deposit need be paid, filed or made under protest or under duress to entitle the taxpayer
to apply for a refund or an abatement or to seek review of the validity of the tax."
The McGary case is thus no longer viable precedent, at least as far as the
standing issue in the present case is concerned. Likewise, the decision in Berry v. Daigle,
12 322 A.2d 320 (Me. 1974), on which the Defendants also rely, rests in part on the same
nugatory principle regarding voluntary payment: See 322 A.2d at .327 ("As the tax was
not paid under legally cognizable duress, the Plaintiff has no entitlement to its refund,
despite the possible merits of his case relative to the constitutionality of the repealed
statute"). Section 152 plainly overrules the rule oflaw that a tax cannot be paid
voluntarily, and must be paid under protest or duress, in order for the taxpayer to be
able later to contest it.
A Law Court decision that is more relevant is the previously discussed opinion
in Inhabitants ofStonington v. Inhabitants of Deer Isle, 40.3 A.2d 1181 (Me. 1979). The
Town of Stonington, along with several individuals suing as taxpayers, sued to contest
the cost-sharing arrangement between the Town and the Town of Deer Isle regarding
costs of the Stonington-Deer Isle Community School District (CSD). Tellingly, the
Law Court decided that it did not need to reach the individual taxpayer claims "[s]ince
the Town of Stonington itself was a proper party plaintiff" 40.3 A.2d at 1181 n.l.
Although the court did not explain why it deemed Stonington a proper plaintiff, it is
obviously Stonington's status as a member of the CSD that confers standing.
Similarly, what gives West Bath standing for purposes of this case is its status as
a member ofRSU1, by virtue ofLD 910 and, as applicable, the provisions of state law
governing RSUs. See 20-A M.R.S. ch. 10.3-A (regional school units). As West Bath
notes, the statute governing regional school units provides that member municipalities
within an RSU are themselves liable to the RSU for failure to pay assessments, with the
RSU having a right of action against a non-paying municipality and the court having
jurisdiction to determine the amount due. See 20-A M.R.S. § 1489(6). In such a case,
13 the municipality, as the defendant, would obviously have standing to contest the RSU's
assessment.
Thus, the fact that West Bath is a member ofRSUl makes it more than just a
tax collector, and renders irrelevant Defendants' argument that this case can only be
pursued as a taxpayer suit, and only for preventive relief. This is not a taxpayer suit,
nor does it need to be. This court is satisfied that under present law, West Bath has
standing as a member ofRSUl to assert the claims it asserts in both its amended
complaint and its proposed Second Amended Complaint.
Difendants' Argument About Lack ofAny Remedy: Defendants also suggest that the
action should be dismissed because, in effect, this is a wrong without a remedy. For
example, Defendants say that West Bath should not be allowed to seek reimbursement
on behalfofits taxpayers because exact reimbursement cannot be achieved. Indeed, the
universe of taxpayers from whom RSUl required West Bath to collect too much has
certainly changed during the intervening years, so it may be impossible to issue refunds
to all ofthose taxpayers, and only to those taxpayers, who were overassessed.
However, the court doubts that such exactitude is required. Even if it is required, the
Defendants, not being West Bath taxpayers themselves, may well lack standing to insist
upon an exact reconciliation.
At this early stage of the case, the court is simply not prepared to accept the
Defendants' premise that the case must be dismissed for lack of remedy.
Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
Under the liberal standard of Rule 15, Maine Rules ofCivil Procedure, West
Bath should be, and will be, given leave to amend in the form of its proposed Second
Amended Complaint. Amendment would not be futile.
14 Conclusion
IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude 96 Exhibits attached to Bath's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is granted.
2. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is
granted. For purposes of setting a due date for responsive pleadings, the proposed
Second Amended Complaint submitted with Plaintiffs Motion shall be deemed filed as
of the date of docketing of this Order.
3. The following motions are all denied:
(a) RSU1's motion to dismiss filed November 19, 2012
(b) RSU1's motion to dismiss flied February 13, 2013
(c) City ofBath's Motion to Dismiss filed December 21, 2012
(d) City of Bath's Motion to Dismiss filed February 22, 2013
(e) Town ofWoolwich's Motion to Dismiss filed February 21, 2013
(f) Town of Arrowsic's Motion to Dismiss filed February 19, 2013
4. The Clerk will schedule a conference of counsel at which a schedule for
the case will be discussed and set. Meanwhile, given that the action has been pending
for some time, discovery by any available means shall proceed on all issues as to which
discovery is appropriate.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference
.4Z!f!Jde pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
Dated June 7, 2013
15 INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF WEST BATH - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT SAGADAHOC, ss. Attorney for: INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF WEST BATH Docket No BATSC-CV-2012-00038 SALLY DAGGETT - RETAINED JENSEN BAIRD ET AL 10 FREE STREET DOCKET RECORD PO BOX 4510 PORTLAND ME 04112
vs REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT NO 1 - DEFENDANT 34 WING FARM PARKWAY BATH ME 04530 Attorney for: REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT NO 1 MELISSA HEWEY - RETAINED 11/19/2012 DRUMMOND WOODSUM 84 MARGINAL WAY SUITE 600 PORTLAND ME 04101-2480
Attorney for: REGIONAL SCHOOL UNIT NO 1 DAVID KALLIN - RETAINED DRUMMOND WOODSUM 84 MARGINAL WAY SUITE 600 PORTLAND ME 04101-2480
INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF ARROWSIC - DEFENDANT
Attorney for: INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF ARROWSIC RUFUS BROWN - RETAINED BROWN & BURKE PO BOX 7530 PORTLAND ME 04112-7530
INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF WOOLWICH - DEFENDANT 13 NEQUASSET ROAD WOOLWICH ME 04579 Attorney for: INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF WOOLWICH KRISTIN MCHENRY COLLINS - RETAINED KELLY & ASSOCIATES, LLC 96 HIGH ST BELFAST ME 04915
CITY OF BATH - INTERVENOR 55 FRONT STREET BATH ME 04530
Attorney for: CITY OF BATH DAVID RAY - RETAINED 01/08/2013 BERNSTEIN SHUR SAWYER & NELSON 100 MIDDLE ST PO BOX 9729 PORTLAND ME 04104-5029
Attorney for: CITY OF BATH TRAVIS MARTAY BRENNAN - RETAINED
BERNSTEIN SHUR SAWYER & NELSON 100 MIDDLE ST Po BOX 9729 PORTLAND ME 04104-5029
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Filing Date: 10/10/2012