Opinion
Civil Action AP-2023-027
10-10-2023
MEETING HOUSE HILL PARK LLC, Petitioner, v. CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND, Respondent.
ORDER
MaryGay Kennedy, Justice
Before the Court is Petitioner Meeting House Hill Park LLC's ("MHHP") Motion for Enlargement of Time. MHHP moves to enlarge the time to file its Complaint, attached to the motion. Respondent City of South Portland ("the City") opposes the motion. For the following reasons, the Court denies MHHP's motion and dismisses the appeal as untimely.
I. Background
Pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80B, MHHP appeals the decision of the City's Board of Assessment Review ("BAR") dated May 17, 2023, denying MHHP's tax abatement appeal ("the Decision").
In June 2022, MHHP received a real estate tax bill from the City. On December 15, 2022, the single member of MHHP, Edward Rowe, filed a request for abatement with the City. When that request was denied, he appealed to BAR. Following hearing, BAR issued the Decision on May 17, 2023, denying Mr. Rowe's appeal. The Decision informed MHHP: "You have the right to appeal this decision to the Superior Court of the State of Maine in accordance with 36 MRSA §843 and Rule 80B of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure."
Mr. Rowe, then-unrepresented, concluded that he should appeal BAR's decision to the Maine State Board of Property Tax Review ("MSBPTR"), rather than to the Superior Court. He filed an appeal with MSBPTR on June 6, 2023. The parties dispute whether MSBPTR is the proper forum for MHHP's appeal. After the City moved to dismiss the appeal before the MSBPTR, MHHP filed this appeal and pending motion on August 1, 2023.
IL Legal Standard
The Superior Court's jurisdiction to hear Rule 80B appeals is a function of statute. 4 M.R.S. § 105(3)(A) (2023); M.R. Civ. P. 80B(a); Norris Fam. Assocs., LLC v. Town of Phippsburg, 2005 ME 102, ¶ 13, 879 A.2d 1007. Rule 80B provides:
The time within which review may be sought shall be as provided by statute, except that if no time limit is specified by statute, the complaint shall be filed within 30 days after notice of any action or refusal to act of which review is sought unless the court enlarges the time in accordance with Rule 6(b)....
Rule 6(b) in turn provides that the Court may grant an enlargement of time "where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect." Untimely appeals pursuant to Rule 80B are subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Paul v. Town of Liberty, 2016 ME 173, ¶ 18, 151 A.3d 924.
III. Discussion
No statute provides a deadline to appeal the decision of a municipal board of assessment review. See 36 M.R.S. § 843. Accordingly, the deadline to appeal was thirty days, or June 17, 2023.
MHHP argues that its Complaint was late because Mr. Rowe, who was unrepresented when he received notice of the Decision, believed that his appeal must be filed with MSBPTR. Generally, misunderstanding of the law is not sufficient to demonstrate excusable neglect. See Young v. Sturdy Furniture Co., 441 A.2d 320, 321 (Me. 1982); Tominsky v. Town of Ogunquit, 2023 ME 30, ¶ 28, 294 A.3d 142 (quoting Young, 441 A.2d at 321). The fact that Mr. Rowe was unrepresented at the time is immaterial. See Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Woodman, 1997 ME 164, ¶ 3 n.3, 697 A.2d 1295 (unrepresented litigants must be held to the same standards as represented litigants); Caron v. City of Auburn, 567 A.2d 66, 67 (Me. 1989) (excusable neglect not demonstrated by litigant who was unaware of appeal rights until he retained counsel six weeks after notice of board's decision, and then waited four more weeks to appeal).
The Court need not determine whether MSBPTR or the Superior Court is the proper forum for this appeal because, regardless, MFIHP has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for its late-filed appeal to this Court. The Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See Paul, 2016 ME 173, ¶ 18, 151 A.3d 924.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, MHHP has not demonstrated excusable neglect. Accordingly, MHHP's Motion for Enlargement of Time will be denied, and its appeal must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The entry is:
1. Petitioner Meeting House Hill Park LLC's Motion for Enlargement of time is DENIED; and
2. Petitioner's appeal is DISMISSED as untimely.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).