# Hasty v. Multnomah County Assessor

> Oregon Tax Court · November 27, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10605857

## Case

- **Court:** Oregon Tax Court
- **Decided:** November 27, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10605857

## Opinion text

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax

JAMES HASTY and ALISON HASTY, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) TC-MD 120511C
)
v. )
)
MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs appealed the real market value of property identified in the Multnomah County

Assessor’s records as account R219157 (subject property) for the 2011-12 tax year. A trial by

telephone was scheduled in the above-entitled matter, to be held November 26, 2012, at

9:00 a.m. Plaintiff James Hasty (Hasty) appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Defendant was

represented by Barry Dayton and Doug Brown, appraisers with the Multnomah County

Assessor’s office.

At the case management conference, held August 13, 2012, the court discussed with the

parties the applicable exhibit exchange deadlines and pertinent Tax Court rules.

At the time scheduled for trial, Defendant informed the court the exhibits received from

Plaintiffs were transmitted by email as a PDF attachment; Defendant noted that portions of each

page of the PDF were “cut off, thereby depriving Defendant of the opportunity to review

[Plaintiffs’] exhibits in preparation for trial.” As a result, the court excluded Plaintiffs’ evidence

for failure to follow Tax Court Rule-Magistrate Division 10 C, which states, in part, “[e]ach

party shall provide the court and the other party with copies of all exhibits to be introduced into

evidence in support of that party’s case.”

///

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 120511C 1
Hasty requested the court reschedule the trial for a future date to afford Plaintiffs the

opportunity to remedy the deficiency in their exhibits. The court denied Hasty’s request.

Because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the court’s rules regarding the proper exchange

of exhibits, the court excluded Plaintiffs’ evidence and the scheduled trial was not held. Without

evidence of value, the court cannot make a well-reasoned determination of the real market value

of Plaintiffs’ property as of the assessment date. Hasty attempted to criticize Defendant’s value

report, which had not yet been offered or introduced into evidence (because the trial had not been

officially convened), and, after hearing from Defendant on the matter, the court instructed Hasty

to cease with his critique of that report.

The court concludes that Plaintiffs’ appeal must be dismissed for failure to present the

case on the day of trial. Now, therefore,

IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiffs’ appeal is dismissed.

Dated this day of November 2012.

DAN ROBINSON
MAGISTRATE

If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the Regular Division of
the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563;
or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 State Street, Salem, OR.

Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of the Decision
or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed.

This document was signed by Magistrate Dan Robinson on November 27, 2012.
The Court filed and entered this document on November 27, 2012.

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 120511C 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10605857. Public record. Not legal advice.