- 9 -
renting the cottage for either year-round or summer rentals, she
did not advertise in the local papers or on the Internet.
Petitioner advertised the availability of her cottage by word of
mouth from the local community and by posting 8-1/2- by 11-inch
sheets of white cardboard by her cottage’s front door, by her
cottage’s back door, by her caretaker’s door, and by the door of
her Victorian house. All of these doors were located within two
blocks of each other.
In an e-mail from petitioner in response to a friend’s
inquiry about the possibility of renting the cottage, petitioner
expressed a desire to avoid renting to citizens from the local
area. This calls petitioner’s profit objective into question
since petitioner advertised only in Lubec.
Moreover, petitioner insisted that prospective tenants be
interviewed either by her or by her caretaker who lives two
blocks from the cottage. Petitioner asserts that this was
necessary because of her bad experiences with undesirable tenants
and squatters on lot Nos. 128A and 129. Petitioner, however, had
limited time available to interview potential tenants in Lubec.
Even though petitioner claims that her “home” was in Maine, she
lived and worked in New York during 2002.
In 2002, petitioner spent 1 week vacationing in Lubec.
Petitioner also made several business trips to Lubec, but each
trip lasted no longer than “a couple of days”. Petitioner did
not hire a professional to manage the rental of her cottage in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011