The petitioner, through its nonattorney representative, Mark Lutter, applied to the Town for abatement of its 2008 real estate taxes, using the form provided by the Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) for that purpose. The form instructed the petitioner to sign the application and certify that it has a good faith basis and is based upon truthful information. Additionally, the form required the petitioner's representative to certify that the petitioner had signed the required certification. The petitioner, however, did not sign the form. Instead, Lutter wrote on the signature line "see agent form" and attached an agent authorization form signed by the petitioner. On this form, the petitioner authorized Lutter to act for it and sign municipality abatement and BTLA forms on its behalf. However, the agent authorization form did not include a certification by the petitioner that the information Lutter submitted on its behalf was true. When the Town failed to respond to the abatement request, the petitioner appealed to the Superior Court. The Town moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the failure to properly complete the form was a defect that automatically prevented the Superior Court from exercising jurisdiction over the dispute.
These facts are nearly identical to those found in a case entitled, Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. 659 (2011), with the exception that the taxpayer there appealed to the BTLA rather than the Superior Court. There the Court found that this particular defect in seeking an abatement affects the taxpayer's right to relief because it denies the decision maker the information necessary to properly adjudicate the appeal. However, the defect did not destroy the jurisdiction of the BTLA to review the dispute and come to a decision based upon all of the facts.
Here, the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, and held that this defect did not automatically prevent the Superior Court from exercising jurisdiction over the dispute, and remanded the case back to that court for further hearing.