The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
LAURIE D. LARSEN, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 120180C
)
v. )
)
MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION
Plaintiff appealed the real market value of property identified in the Multnomah County
Assessor’s records as account R498892 (subject property) for the 2011-12 tax year. A trial by
telephone was scheduled in the above-entitled matter, to be held October 22, 2012, at 9:00 AM.
Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf. Defendant was represented by Barry Dayton and Jeff
Brown, appraisers with the Multnomah County Assessor’s office.
At the case management conference, held May 24, 2012, the court discussed with the
parties the applicable exhibit exchange deadlines and Tax Court rules pertinent to the submission
of evidence. The Notice of Hearing also noted the exchange deadlines.
Prior to the commencement of trial, the court informed the parties that the court had
received three exhibits from Defendant, including a value estimate of the subject property, and
no exhibits from Plaintiff. Plaintiff stated she submitted her exhibits to Defendant but not the
court; Plaintiff noted the error was “her fault,” and was due to her lack of awareness of the
court’s exchange rules. Plaintiff also advised the court that she submitted her exhibits to the
court by facsimile just prior to the trial, without first requesting permission to do so.
The court reviewed several problems with Plaintiff’s submission of exhibits. First,
Plaintiff failed to send a copy of all of her exhibits to the court prior to trial. Second, Plaintiff
DECISION TC-MD 120180C 1
submitted her exhibits to the court by facsimile without first obtaining the “prior approval” of the
magistrate, as required by TCR-MD 10 C (2). Third, Plaintiff did not timely file the exhibits in
accordance with Tax Court Rule-Magistrate Division (TCR-MD) 10 C (1),1 which requires that
exhibits be either postmarked 14 days before trial or physically received at least 10 days before
trial. Plaintiff noted that court staff stated she needed to request approval, and that she had
done so at approximately the time the trial was scheduled to commence (i.e., on or about 9:00
AM). TCR-MD 10 C requires that each party “provide the court and the other parties with
copies of all exhibits to be introduced into evidence in support of that party’s case.” (Emphasis
added.) Plaintiff acknowledged that she did not send her exhibits to the court before the trial
because she thought Defendant would submit to the court the exhibits she provided to it.
After reviewing those procedural missteps, Plaintiff stated that she “assume[d] the
hearing [wa]s over.” The court queried Plaintiff as to how she might move forward with trial
and demonstrate a lower real market value without any evidence. Plaintiff responded that she
had her exhibits, consisting of two separate independent fee appraisals; she wondered why those
documents could not be used to set the value of the property, or at least result in a “split”
between her claimed value and the value currently on the assessment and tax rolls. The court
asked Defendant’s representatives if they felt any reduction in the real market value was
warranted based on one or both of Plaintiff’s appraisals, which the court had not seen up to that
point. One of Defendant’s representative stated that they did not feel a reduction in the real
market value was in order. The court was not surprised by that response because Plaintiff had
advised the court that Defendant’s original value was based on an appraisal that had been made
///
1
All references to the Tax Court rules are to the rules in effect as of March 16, 2012.
DECISION TC-MD 120180C 2
for the bank, which had been the owner of the property prior to Plaintiff’s December 2010
purchase. That value is very close to Defendant’s trial value.
The court denied Plaintiff’s request to admit exhibits not properly filed or submitted to
the court prior to trial. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s rules regarding the
submission and exchange of exhibits, and as a result had no evidence to present at trial, no trial
was held. Without any evidence of value, the court cannot make a well-reasoned determination
of the real market value of Plaintiff’s property as of the assessment date. Now, therefore,
The court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to meet her statutory burden of proof, per
ORS 305.427,2 and that per ORS 305.412, the values currently on the assessment and tax rolls
should be sustained. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal is denied and that, for
the 2011-12 tax year, the real market value of the subject property, identified as account
R498892, shall remain undisturbed at $1,591,840.
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that there shall be no change to the maximum assessed
value of $2,200,150 for tax year 2011-12 for the property identified as account R498892.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
2
The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2011.
DECISION TC-MD 120180C 3
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that the assessed value shall remain unchanged at
$1,591,840, per ORS 308.146(2), for tax year 2011-12 for the property identified as account
R498892.
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 Decision was signed by Magistrate Dan Robinson on November 5, 2012.
The Court filed and entered this Decision on November 5, 2012.
DECISION TC-MD 120180C 4