BRUNSWICK

A tax-acquired Mere Point property eyed by citizens for a public park will be listed for sale now that a notice alerting a potential buyer of a legal conflict regarding the parcel has been lifted from the deed.

The four-acre parcel is at the center of a dispute between the town and residents who claim their petition to create a public park at the site was not properly considered. Citizens who sought to create a public park at 946 Mere Point Road filed a civil action against the town in February, asserting the council did not adhere to a municipal charter that, they claim, stipulates a citizens’ petition be the subject of a public hearing and subsequent referendum vote.

The case, filed in Cumberland County Superior Court, hinges on the interpretation of the town charter. A notice, called a lis pendens, was attached to the deed of the parcel when the suit was filed. A lis pendens is intended to alert a potential buyer of pending litigation regarding real estate.

Maine Superior Court Justice Lance Walker granted the town’s motion Mon- day to cancel the lis pendens notice on the waterfront parcel. David Lourie, representing Brunswick Citizens for Collaborative Government, said in court papers the notice is reasonable because a buyer should be aware more than 1,000 of their potential neighbors preferred the property be a park, as opposed to their home.

Stephen Langsdorf, Brunswick’s attorney, asked the court to cancel the notice, arguing it is improper as the title and interest in the property is not being disputed and is not part of the appeal and complaint. Walker agreed with the town, citing state statue that reads the notice applies to actions where “the title to real estate is involved.” As the title of the property is not in dispute, the lis pendens notice does not apply.

Langsdorf said Tuesday there is not a prospective buyer at this time, but with the lifting of the notice, the land can now be listed by a real estate agent.

Lourie said his clients are now in a foot race with the town, as he expects Brunswick will move to sell the land before a decision is reached by the court. If the land is to sell before the case is resolved in court, Lourie said the case will stay alive, because the town tried to deprive the people of an initiative.

The property came under town ownership in 2011 due to a tax foreclosure, and the council voted 7-2 in February to sell the land without considering the motion to create a public park. Several months earlier, in September, the council voted 5-4 to sell the real estate, which includes a house and is assessed at $221,900.

Lourie said earlier this month he is highly confident the plaintiffs will prevail in the case. The lawsuit seeks a public hearing on the proposed ordinance to create a park and a subsequent referendum on the proposal be scheduled. The court action alleged the town’s narrow reading of the charter has a chilling effect on citizens’ First Amendment rights to initiate an ordinance.

Petitioners Robert Baskett and Soxna Dice collected and submitted more than 1,000 signatures in January that supported adding the Mere Point property to a list of ordinances, seeking the creation of a park. The action was a response intended to overturn the council’s decision to sell the property months earlier. Dice, in the lawsuit, claims the town charter calls for a public hearing and a referendum election for what is known as police power ordinances within 30 days of receiving signatures.

Langsdorf said the thrust of the town’s argument centers around the fact that a council can act in two ways — either through an ordinance, which is an ongoing law and subject to challenge via petition; or through an order, which is a one-time action and not open to petition. He argues the decision to sell the property was an order, and therefore, not subject to be overturned by referendum. The only way for the order to be changed, he said, is for the council to voluntarily put the decision to a citizen vote, which they are not obligated to do.

Lourie called the defendant’s argument silly, contending it sounds good politically in an effort to cover the council and justify what they wanted to do, which was to sell the land. He said there is no legal validity to the claim.

“The case will go forward on the merits,” he said.

Langsdorf said cases like this are typically resolved within three to six months. When asked if the suit would be considered moot if the property was to sell before a ruling was issued, Langsdorf said he would argue yes, but said the plaintiffs have asked that the court still rule whether the action was properly handled by the council.

jlaaka@timesrecord.com