Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 843 (2026)

Appeals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Municipalities.  If a municipality has adopted a board of assessment review and the assessors or the municipal officers refuse to make the abatement asked for, the applicant may apply in writing to the board of assessment review within 60 days after notice of the decision from which the appeal is being taken or after the application is deemed to have been denied, and, if the board thinks the applicant is over-assessed, the applicant is granted such reasonable abatement as the board thinks proper. Except with regard to nonresidential property or properties with an equalized municipal valuation of $1,000,000 or greater either separately or in the aggregate, either party may appeal from the decision of the board of assessment review directly to the Superior Court, in accordance with Rule 80B of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. If the board of assessment review fails to give written notice of its decision within 60 days of the date the application is filed, unless the applicant agrees in writing to further delay, the application is deemed denied and the applicant may appeal to Superior Court as if there had been a written denial.  
[PL 1995, c. 262, §4 (AMD).]
1-A.  Nonresidential property of $1,000,000 or greater.  With regard to nonresidential property or properties with an equalized municipal valuation of $1,000,000 or greater either separately or in the aggregate, either party may appeal the decision of the local board of assessment review or the primary assessing area board of assessment review to the State Board of Property Tax Review within 60 days after notice of the decision from which the appeal is taken or after the application is deemed to be denied, as provided in subsections 1 and 2. The board shall hold a hearing de novo. If the board thinks that the applicant is over-assessed, it shall grant such reasonable abatement as the board thinks proper. For the purposes of this section, "nonresidential property" means property that is used primarily for commercial, industrial or business purposes, excluding unimproved land that is not associated with a commercial, industrial or business use.  
[PL 1995, c. 262, §4 (AMD).]
2.  Primary assessing areas.  If a primary assessing area has adopted a board of assessment review and the assessors or municipal officers refuse to make the abatement asked for, the applicant may apply in writing to the board of assessment review within 60 days after notice of the decision from which the appeal is being taken or after the application is deemed to have been denied, and if the board thinks the applicant is over-assessed, the applicant is granted such reasonable abatement as the board thinks proper. Except with regard to nonresidential property or properties with an equalized municipal valuation of $1,000,000 or greater, either separately or in the aggregate, either party may appeal the decision of the board of assessment review directly to the Superior Court, in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80B. If the board of assessment review fails to give written notice of its decision within 60 days of the date the application was filed, unless the applicant agrees in writing to further delay, the application is deemed denied and the applicant may appeal to the Superior Court as if there had been a written denial.  
[PL 2001, c. 396, §17 (AMD).]
3.  Notice of decision.  Any agency to which an appeal is made under this section is subject to the provisions for notice of decision in section 842.  
[PL 1991, c. 546, §12 (NEW).]
4.  Payment requirements for taxpayers.  A taxpayer filing an appeal under this section must pay an amount of current taxes equal to the greater of the amount of taxes paid in the immediately preceding tax year, to the extent that amount does not exceed the amount of taxes due in the current tax year, and the amount of taxes in the current tax year that is not in dispute. If the taxpayer has filed an appeal under this section without paying the appropriate amount of taxes by or after the due date or according to a payment schedule mutually agreed to in writing by the taxpayer and the municipal officers, the appeal process must be suspended until the taxes, together with any accrued interest and costs, have been paid. If an appeal is in process upon expiration of a due date or written payment schedule date for payment of taxes in a particular municipality, without the appropriate amount of taxes having been paid, whether the taxes are due for the year under appeal or a subsequent tax year, the appeal process must be suspended until the appropriate amount of taxes described in this subsection, together with any accrued interest and costs, has been paid. This subsection does not apply to property with a valuation of less than $500,000.  
[PL 2021, c. 531, Pt. B, §4 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1973, c. 536, §24 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 625, §246 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 509, §18 (RPR). PL 1977, c. 694, §693 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 30, §§3,4 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 364, §21 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 698, §180 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 764, §17 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 546, §12 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 242, §1 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 395, §12 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 262, §4 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 396, §17 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 436, §1 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 436, §2 (AFF). PL 2009, c. 434, §16 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 379, Pt. A, §5 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 531, Pt. B, §4 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case: Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Town of Moscow, 649 A.2d 320 (Me. 1994).
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Town of Moscow, 649 A.2d 320 (Me. 1994). · cites it 8× “36 M.R.S.A. §§ 843(1-A), 844(2) (Supp.1993).”
Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16 (Me. 2001). · cites it 2× “After the expiration of the 60-day appeal period in 36 M.R.S.A. §§ 843(1) and 844(1) (Supp.2000), Limington's attorney informed the Center that the Board of Assessment Review was misnamed and did not in fact deal with assessment review.”
Donald Petrin v. Town of Scarborough, 2016 ME 136 (Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “Lesperance denied the applications, and the Taxpayers appealed to the Scarborough Board of Assessment Review pursuant to 36 M.R.S. § 843(1) (2015). 3 After granting the Taxpayers’- request to consolidate the appeals, the Board held a hearing on three dates in August through…”
Weekley v. Town of Scarborough, 676 A.2d 932 (Me. 1996). · cites it 4× “The Weekleys appealed the denial to the Town's Board of Assessment Review pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 843, contending that the assessed values were unreasonably high in light of the recent sale price of each of the respective lots.”
Angell Fam. 2012 Prouts Neck Trusts v. Town of Scarborough Kenyon C. Bolton III v. Town of Scarborough, 2016 ME 152 (Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “80B(a) and 36 M.R.S. § 843, appealing the Board’s decision denying their requests for tax abatements.”
Freeport Minerals Co. v. Inhabitants of Bucksport, 437 A.2d 642 (Me. 1981). · cites it 5× “The Superior Court, on motion by the town, dismissed the action on the grounds that Storage Tank lacked standing to prosecute the appeal and that Freeport and Penobscot were precluded from prosecuting the appeal as they had failed to notify the Board of Assessment Review of…”
Marc B. Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough, 2014 ME 57 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “80B; 36 M.R.S. § 843(1) (2013), finding that the Board had failed to state adequate conclusions and findings of fact.”
South Portland Assocs. v. City of South Portland, 550 A.2d 363 (Me. 1988). · cites it 3× “36 M.R.S.A. § 843(1) (Supp.1988). In the course of extensive hearings before the Board, witnesses for the taxpayers testified to the special circumstances of Redbank and Millcove that made a cost or market appraisal method relatively unreliable and made an income approach…”
City of Biddeford v. Adams, 1999 ME 49 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “[¶ 24] Neither Maine case law nor the tax abatement statute provide guidance on the appropriate remedy for unjust discrimination, except that if the Board thinks the property is overvalued, it “shall grant such reasonable abatement as it thinks proper.”
Gerald Marshall v. Town of Dexter, 2015 ME 135 (Me. 2015). “On March 14, 2013, Marshall appealed the reduced valuation to the Superior Court pursuant to 36 M.R.S. § 843(1) (2014) and M.R. Civ. P.”
City of Waterville v. Waterville Homes, Inc., 655 A.2d 365 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “After the two appeals were consolidated before the Board, 36 M.R.S.A. § 843(1-A) (1990), the Board granted Water-ville Homes the abatement it requested for both years in question.”
Stewart v. Town of Sedgwick, 2000 ME 157 (Me. 2000). “2d 636, 640 ; 36 M.R.S.A. § 843(1) (1990 & Supp., 1999).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 843(1) — 31 cases
Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16 (Me. 2001). “After the expiration of the 60-day appeal period in 36 M.R.S.A. §§ 843(1) and 844(1) (Supp.2000), Limington's attorney informed the Center that the Board of Assessment Review was misnamed and did not in fact deal with assessment review.”
Donald Petrin v. Town of Scarborough, 2016 ME 136 (Me. 2016). “Lesperance denied the applications, and the Taxpayers appealed to the Scarborough Board of Assessment Review pursuant to 36 M.R.S. § 843(1) (2015). 3 After granting the Taxpayers’- request to consolidate the appeals, the Board held a hearing on three dates in August through…”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Town of Moscow, 649 A.2d 320 (Me. 1994). “36 M.R.S.A. §§ 843(1-A), 844(2) (Supp.1993).”
South Portland Assocs. v. City of South Portland, 550 A.2d 363 (Me. 1988). “36 M.R.S.A. § 843(1) (Supp.1988). In the course of extensive hearings before the Board, witnesses for the taxpayers testified to the special circumstances of Redbank and Millcove that made a cost or market appraisal method relatively unreliable and made an income approach…”
Weekley v. Town of Scarborough, 676 A.2d 932 (Me. 1996). “The Weekleys appealed the denial to the Town's Board of Assessment Review pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 843, contending that the assessed values were unreasonably high in light of the recent sale price of each of the respective lots.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 843(2) — 3 cases
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Town of Moscow, 649 A.2d 320 (Me. 1994). “36 M.R.S.A. §§ 843(1-A), 844(2) (Supp.1993).”
Rice v. Amerling, 433 A.2d 388 (Me. 1981).
Glenridge Dev. Co. v. City of Augusta, 662 A.2d 928 (Me. 1995).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 843(4) — 2 cases
Marc B. Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough, 2014 ME 57 (Me. 2014). “80B; 36 M.R.S. § 843(1) (2013), finding that the Board had failed to state adequate conclusions and findings of fact.”
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.