Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 842 (2026)

Notice of decision

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The assessors or municipal officers shall give to any person applying to them for an abatement of taxes notice in writing of their decision upon the application within 10 days after they take final action thereon. The notice of decision must include the reason or reasons supporting the decision to approve or deny the abatement request and state that the applicant has 60 days from the date the notice is received to appeal the decision. It must also identify the board or agency designated by law to hear the appeal. If the assessors or municipal officers, before whom an application in writing for the abatement of a tax is pending, fail to give written notice of their decision within 60 days from the date of filing of the application, the application is deemed to have been denied, and the applicant may appeal as provided in sections 843 and 844, unless the applicant has in writing consented to further delay. Denial in this manner is final action for the purposes of notification under this section but failure to send notice of decision does not affect the applicant's right of appeal. This section does not apply to applications for abatement made under section 841, subsection 2. [PL 2013, c. 182, §1 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 509, §17 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 764, §16 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 772, §17 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 546, §11 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 396, §16 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 182, §1 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1976–2017 · leading case: Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16 (Me. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16 (Me. 2001). “See 36 M.R.S.A. § 842 (Supp.2000). The Town Clerk advised the Center to direct its appeal from that denial to the Limington Board of Assessment Review.”

Maine Cent. R.R. v. Town of Dexter, 588 A.2d 289 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “On February 14, 1989, the time limit within which the Town was required to respond to the abatement request expired, and pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 842 (1990), 5 the request was deemed denied.”

Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Town of Moscow, 649 A.2d 320 (Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 842 (Supp.1993), the Town's failure to act on CMP's request within sixty days was deemed to be a denial of the abatement.”

Allied Resources, Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 999 A.2d 940 (Me. 2010). “”), with 36 M.R.S. § 842 (2009) ("The assessors or municipal officers shall give to any person applying to them for an abatement of taxes notice in writing of their decision upon the application within 10 days after they take final action thereon.”

Roque Island Gardner Homestead Corp. v. Town of Jonesport, 167 A.3d 564 (Me. 2017). “The application was thereby deemed denied, see 36 M.R.S. § 842 (2016),'and RIHC pursued its application before the Board, see 36 M.”

Int'l Woolen Co. v. Town of Sanford, 827 A.2d 840 (Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “1 36 M.R.S.A. § 842 (Supp.2002). If the assessor fails to give written notice' of a decision on the application within sixty days from the date of filing, then the application is deemed denied unless the taxpayer has consented to further delay.”

Int'l Woolen Co., Inc. v. Town of Sanford (Me. Super. Ct 2002). · cites it 2× “36 M.R.S.A. §§842 and 843. Each stage in the appellate process has deadlines for each appeal.”

Inhabs.of the Town of West Bath v. Williams (Me. Super. Ct 2004). · cites it 2× “3 (citing 36 M.R.S.A. § 842). Thus, the town says, the commissioners were required to give notice of their decision in writing.”

Roque Island Gardner Homestead Corp. v. Town of Jonesport, 167 A.3d 564 (Me. 2017). “The application was thereby deemed denied, see 36 M.R.S. § 842 (2016),'and RIHC pursued its application before the Board, see 36 M.”

Roque Island Gardner Homestead Corp. v. Town of Jonesport, 167 A.3d 564 (Me. 2017). “The application was thereby deemed denied, see 36 M.R.S. § 842 (2016),'and RIHC pursued its application before the Board, see 36 M.”

Inh. of the Town of Burlington v. Eaton (Me. Super. Ct 2009). “" 36 M.R.S. § 842 (2008). Despite the wording of the statute, explicit written consent is not required and consent may be implied.”

Bilinsky v. Town of Newry (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “3 In its reply brief, the Town argues that the appeal should be barred because the plaintiffs refused to provide the Town with the requested information about their property, even though the request was made after the Town, pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 842, effectively denied their…”

Show all 13 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.