Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 36
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 701-A (2026)

Just value defined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In the assessment of property, assessors in determining just value are to define this term in a manner that recognizes only that value arising from presently possible land use alternatives to which the particular parcel of land being valued may be put. In determining just value, assessors must consider all relevant factors, including without limitation the effect upon value of any enforceable restrictions to which the use of the land may be subjected including the effect on value of designation of land as significant wildlife habitat under Title 38, section 480‑BB, current use, physical depreciation, sales in the secondary market, functional obsolescence and economic obsolescence. Restrictions include but are not limited to zoning restrictions limiting the use of land, subdivision restrictions and any recorded contractual provisions limiting the use of lands. The just value of land is determined to arise from and is attributable to legally permissible use or uses only.   [PL 2007, c. 389, §1 (AMD).]
For the purpose of establishing the valuation of unimproved acreage in excess of an improved house lot, contiguous parcels and parcels divided by road, powerline or right-of-way may be valued as one parcel when: each parcel is 5 or more acres; the owner gives written consent to the assessor to value the parcels as one parcel; and the owner certifies that the parcels are not held for sale and are not subdivision lots.   [PL 1993, c. 317, §1 (NEW); PL 1993, c. 317, §2 (AFF).]
For the purpose of establishing the valuation of improved real property, the property must be valued based on its highest and best use as of April 1st of each year, taking all of the following 3 approaches to value into consideration: cost, income and sales comparison. In establishing the valuation of improved real property, assessors shall consider age, condition, use, type of construction, location, design, physical features and economic characteristics.   [PL 2023, c. 441, Pt. B, §4 (AMD); PL 2023, c. 441, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
In determining just value, consistent with the Constitution of Maine, Article IX, Section 8, a property subject to restrictions, contractual or otherwise, that restrict the permitted use of a property may not be considered comparable to property not so restricted.   [PL 2021, c. 663, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 246 (NEW). PL 1985, c. 764, §13 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 317, §1 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 317, §2 (AFF). PL 1999, c. 478, §2 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 389, §1 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 663, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 441, Pt. B, §4 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 441, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: Yusem v. Town of Raymond, 2001 ME 61 (Me. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yusem v. Town of Raymond, 2001 ME 61 (Me. 2001). · cites it 5× “At the hearing before the Commissioners, Yusem argued that the assessor had failed to consider all of the factors enumerated in 36 M.R.S.A § 701-A (1990 & Supp.1998) to determine just value.”
Francis Small Heritage Trust, Inc. v. Town of Limington, 2014 ME 102 (Me. 2014). “Section 1106-A(2) further provides, however, that “[n]ot-withstanding this section, the value of forested open space land may not be reduced to less than the value it would have under [the Maine Tree Growth Tax Law], and the open space land valuation may not exceed just value as…”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Town of Moscow, 649 A.2d 320 (Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “By statute, the assessors in their determination of just value "must consider all relevant factors, including without limitation, the effect upon value of any enforceable restrictions to which the use of the land may be subjected, current use, physical depreciation, functional…”
Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 604 A.2d 908 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 701-A (1990) provides as follows: In the assessment of property, assessors in determining just value are to define this term in a manner which recognizes only that value arising from presently possible land use alternatives to which the particular parcel of land being valued…”
Glenridge Dev. Co. v. City of Augusta, 662 A.2d 928 (Me. 1995). “36 M.R.S.A. § 701-A (1990) 7 requires that all relevant factors be considered in determining just value.”
Pepperman v. Town of Rangeley, 1999 ME 157 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “” 36 M.R.S.A. § 701-A. 2 (emphasis added). Here, the record reflects that the Board considered functional obsolescence and declined to apply it to the Peppermans’ detached barn.”
Town of Sanford v. J & N SANFORD TRUST, 1997 ME 97 (Me. 1997). “36 M.R.S.A. § 701-A (1990 & Supp.1996) provides guidance to assessors for determining just value: 4 .”
UAH-Hydro Kennebec, L.P. v. Town of Winslow, 921 A.2d 146 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× ““In the assessment of property, assessors in determining just value are to define this term in a manner that recognizes only that value arising from presently possible land use alternatives to which the particular parcel of land being valued may be put.”
Madison Paper Indus. v. Town of Madison, 2021 ME 35 (Me. 2021). · cites it 3× “IX, § 8; 36 M.R.S. § 701-A (2021). Next, it argues that the Board committed legal error by deciding that the hydro assets should be valued based on their “highest and best use”—as merchant power plants—but that the mill assets should be valued based on their “current use.”
Lebovitz v. Town of Scarborough (Me. Super. Ct 2003). · cites it 2× “ly wrong, because either 1) the judgment of the assessor was irrational, or was so unreasonable in light of the circumstances that the property was substantially overvalued and an injustice resulted; 2) the Plaintiff was unjustly discriminated against in the valuation of his…”
Stephenson v. Inhabs. of the Town of Bristol (Me. Super. Ct 2004). · cites it 2× “setting the value of their lot at $75,000.00. The Lincoln County Commissioners held a hearing on November 18, 2003 and issued a Decision and Order denying the abatement on January 6, 2004.”
Balise v. Town of Embden (Me. Super. Ct 2010). · cites it 2× “36 M.R.S. § 701-A (2009).1 A review of the record relevant to the just value of Plaintiffs' property reveals that Plaintiffs presented credi ble evidence to support their contention that their property was I The Court cites the statute as a reflection of the factors that merit…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.