The opinion
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
RESOURCES L OB, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 140116C
)
v. )
)
CLACKAMAS COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) FINAL DECISION
This Final Decision incorporates without change the court’s Decision entered
September 9, 2014. The court did not receive a request for an award of costs and disbursements
within 14 days after its Decision was entered. See TCR-MD 19.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff appeals the real market value of property identified as Account 00173797
(subject property) for the 2013-14 tax year. (Ptf’s Compl at 1.) In its Answer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint, Defendant counterclaimed for an increase in the real market value (RMV). (Def’s
Answer at 1.) On the day of trial, Defendant advised the court of its intent to amend its request
to seek a higher RMV based on its appraisal prepared for trial.
The matter was set for trial, to be held in the Oregon Tax Court Mediation Center on
September 3, 2014, in Salem, Oregon. James E. Redman (Redman), attorney at law, appeared on
behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s appraiser, Ryan S. Prusse (Prusse), MAI, was not present on the
morning of trial; Bradley S. Olson (Olson), Member of the Plaintiff LLC, was present and
available to testify on behalf of Plaintiff. Kathleen J. Rastetter (Rastetter), assistant county
counsel, appeared on behalf of Defendant. Ronald R. Saunders (Saunders), Registered
Appraiser, was present and available to testify for Defendant.
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 140116C 1
II. DISCUSSION
At the commencement of trial, Plaintiff’s representative Redman made an oral motion for
a set over because his key witness, Prusse, an appraiser who had prepared for Plaintiff an
appraisal report valuing the subject property, was not available to testify on the morning of trial.
Redman explained that he had been unable to reach Prusse or anyone at Prusse’s office by
telephone either on the day prior to trial or on the morning of trial. Redman further advised the
court that there was another appraiser and a support staff in Prusse’s office, which is located in
Wilsonville, Oregon.1
The court denied Redman’s rescheduling request based on Tax Court Rule-Magistrate
Division (TCR-MD) 2 D. That rule provides in relevant part:
“Requests to reschedule mediation and trial proceedings set at a case
management conference will not be granted except in exceptional circumstances.”
TCR-MD 2 D (emphasis added).
The trial in this case was set at an earlier case management conference. Under the court’s
rule set forth above, the request to reschedule requires an “exceptional circumstance.”
TCR-MD 2 D. The unexplained absence of a witness is not in exceptional circumstance
sufficient to justify the set over of a trial, particularly where the request is made to the court, in
the courtroom, on the day of trial.
After denying Plaintiff’s initial request to reschedule, Redman narrowed his request for a
set over (rescheduling) by asking the court to allow him one day to try and ascertain why Prusse
was not present at the trial. The court denied that request because one of the two other
1
Although the parties’ exhibits were not introduced into evidence at trial, their exhibits were exchanged
prior to trial pursuant to Tax Court Rule-Magistrate Division (TCR-MD) 10 C(1). Among the exhibits exchanged by
Plaintiff prior to trial is Prusse’s appraisal report, marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 9. Page 1 of that report provides
information as to the members of Prusse’s appraisal company, RSP & Associates LLC, and the company’s address.
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 140116C 2
employees in Prusse’s office should have been available by phone the day before, or the morning
of, trial, to explain Prusse’s situation (i.e., why he was not available to testify on the day of trial).
Under those facts, the court finds no reason to grant Plaintiff an additional day to attempt to
make contact with its expert to determine whether his unavailability for trial was extreme enough
to constitute an exceptional circumstance.
After the court’s ruling, Plaintiff’s representative Redman advised the court that he did
not see any point in going forward with the trial in the absence of his key witness. The court
then queried Defendant’s representative Rastetter about her counterclaim, and she advised the
court that Defendant was willing to withdraw its counterclaim for an increase in the RMV, and to
stipulate to the $800,000 RMV currently on the assessment and tax rolls, as reduced by the
county board of property tax appeals (Board) for the 2013-14 tax years.2 Plaintiff’s
representative Redman conferred with his client Olson, a member of the Plaintiff LLC, and then
advised the court it would accept the proposed stipulated RMV of $800,000. The court
considered the matter and found the parties’ agreement appropriate.
III. CONCLUSION
The court concludes that the parties’ oral agreement at trial to reduce the RMV of the
subject property, identified as Account 00173797, to $800,000 for the 2013-14 tax year, should
be, and is hereby, granted. Now, therefore,
///
///
///
2
The RMV for subject property prior to the Board’s reduction was $904,022. Defendant in its Answer had
counterclaimed for an increase in the RMV back to the $904,022, which was the county assessor’s RMV before the
Board’s reduction, and advised the court that it had intended to seek a further increase in the RMV to $950,000,
based on Defendant’s trial appraisal.
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 140116C 3
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that, based on the agreement of the parties, the
real market value of the subject property, identified as Account 00173797, was $800,000 as of
January 1, 2013.
Dated this day of September 2014.
DAN ROBINSON
MAGISTRATE
If you want to appeal this Final 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 Final
Decision or this Final Decision cannot be changed.
This document was signed by Magistrate Dan Robinson on September 26, 2014.
The Court filed and entered this document on September 26, 2014.
FINAL DECISION TC-MD 140116C 4