Force v. Jackson County Assessor

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT

MAGISTRATE DIVISION

Property Tax

REBECCA FORCE, Trustee of the William )

Pierson Family Farm Trust, )

)

Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 150290D

)

v. )

)

JACKSON COUNTY ASSESSOR, )

)

Defendant. ) FINAL DECISION

This Final Decision incorporates without change the court’s Decision, entered

December 23, 2015. The court did not receive a statement of costs and disbursements within 14

days after its Decision was entered. See TCR-MD 16 C(1).

Plaintiff appeals Defendant’s actions creating Account 10999493 (subject property) and

determining the subject property’s real market value for the 2014–15 tax year. A trial was held

in the Oregon Tax Courtroom on October 13, 2015, in Salem, Oregon. David C. Force,

Attorney, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and John Pierson (Pierson) and Susan Pierson testified

on behalf of Plaintiff. Lorrie Williams, Jackson County Lead Appraiser, appeared on behalf of

Defendant, and Sara Caspagnaro (Caspagnaro), Jackson County Appraiser and Analyst, testified

on behalf of Defendant. William Johnson (Johnson), Jackson County Senior Cartographer,

testified on behalf of both Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff’s Exhibits 5 through 22 and

Defendant’s Exhibits A through J were received without objection.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Pierson testified that William and Ruth Pierson purchased 235 acres of property (Pierson

Farm) in 1967. Pierson testified that Pierson Farm was composed of many undeveloped lots of

record, originating from its designation as a registered subdivision in 1923—including an 86.58-

FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150290D 1

acre parcel (Tax Lot 100), a 0.37-acre parcel (Tax Lot 500), and a 0.52-acre parcel (Tax Lot

400).

Pierson testified that in 2003, after the death of William and Ruth Pierson, the Pierson

Farm became part of the Estate of William Pierson (Estate). Pierson testified that Tax Lot 400—

a lot bordered to the north by Tax Lot 500, to the south by Main Street, and to both the east and

the west by Tax Lot 100—was improved by a house and barn. Pierson testified that the property

line between Tax Lots 400 and 100 ran through the foundation of the house. Pierson testified

that the house and barn, as well as Tax Lots 400 and 500, were conveyed from the Estate to

Rebecca Force, Martha Pierson, and John Pierson (Tenants) in 2008 as tenants in common by an

unrecorded deed (2008 Deed). Pierson testified the 2008 Deed adjusted the lot line between Tax

Lot 400 and Tax Lot 100, increasing the size of Tax Lot 400 from 0.52 acres to 0.87 acres, and

decreasing the size of Tax Lot 100 from 86.58 acres to 86.23 acres.

Pierson testified that the Tenants retained Darrell Huck (Huck) of Hoffbuhr &

Associates, a land-surveying firm located in Medford, Oregon, to survey the property and

monument the property line adjustment between the two tax lots that was described in the 2008

Deed. (See Def’s Ex B at 15.) Pierson testified that the “Map of Survey” produced by Huck,

which documented the lot line adjustment between Tax Lot 400 and Tax Lot 100, was approved

by the Jackson County Development Services Department (Development Services) on December

14, 2009. (Id.) Johnson testified that he agreed that the Development Services—not

Defendant—approved the “Map of Survey,” which documented the lot line adjustment.

Pierson testified that the Estate executed a Quit Claim Deed to Plaintiff on January 2,

2013 (January 2013 Deed) (See Def’s Ex B at 2–6.) The January 2013 Deed conveyed to

Plaintiff all of the Pierson Farm, except 21.30 acres of the 86.23 acres designated as Tax Lot 100

FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150290D 2

and Tax Lots 400 and 500 which already had been conveyed to the Tenants in an unrecorded

deed. The Estate retained the 21.30 acres designated as Tax Lot 100, while the 64.93 acre lot

held by Plaintiff was designated Tax Lot 101. (Id. at 7.) Pierson testified that the January 2013

Deed mistakenly omitted the legal description of the 21.30 acres from the conveyance to

Plaintiff. Pierson testified that if an error had not occurred, the January 2013 Deed would have

included the 21.30 acres.

Pierson testified that the Estate executed a Quit Claim Deed to Plaintiff on August 26,

2013 (August 2013 Deed). (See Def’s Ex B at 8–13.) The August 2013 Deed conveyed to

Plaintiff the 21.30 acres of the Pierson Farm that had erroneously been retained by the Estate.

Johnson testified that after the August 2013 Deed was recorded, Defendant’s Cartography

Department determined a lot partition of Tax Lot 100 had occurred and created Tax Lot 102, the

21.30-acre land parcel (subject property). Defendant assessed the newly created Tax Lot 102 in

2014. Johnson testified that even though Development Services had approved the survey

documenting the lot line adjustment in 2009, Defendant did not recognize an actionable tax

assessment event under Measure 50 until the August 2013 Deed was recorded. Pierson testified

that Plaintiff received the tax assessment notice from Defendant in October 2014, which stated

that a new lot had been created and had been assessed property tax.

Plaintiff offered exhibits and testimony regarding the subject property’s real market

value. Pierson testified that the subject property was “unmarketable for sale,” its use was

“limited to a rental property” for farm employees and described the condition of the rental

houses. (See Ptf’s Exs 5–22 (photographs of rental houses).) Defendant’s evidence regarding

the subject property’s real market value consisted of Capagnaro’s testimony and documents she

prepared. Caspagnaro testified that no comparable properties to the subject property existed, and

FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150290D 3

in the absence of comparable properties, “a general overview” of other properties for sale in the

area that share some of the subject property’s characteristics “might be analyzed” to determine

the subject property’s real market value. She testified that the subject property’s real market

value was $750,460 and the assessed value was $397,462. Plaintiff challenged Caspagnaro’s

determination of real market value, citing lack of comparability of the land sales to the subject

property’s land, and cost and condition of the subject property’s improvements.

Plaintiff appealed the tax assessment to the Jackson County Board of Property Tax

Appeals (BOPTA). The BOPTA Order, dated March 23, 2015, upheld Defendant’s tax

assessment. (Compl at 2.) Plaintiff filed an appeal with this court, postmarked April 22, 2015.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Partition

The court first considers whether Defendant correctly determined that a partition by deed

occurred, creating a new tax lot and resulting in a tax assessment based on one of the exceptions

to the general rule of Measure 50.

The court’s analysis begins with the property tax system enacted by Oregon voters,

commonly referred to as Measure 50. Or Const Art XI, § 11. Approved by the Oregon

electorate in 1997 and implemented by ORS 308.142 to ORS 308.166 for the 1997–98 tax year,

Measure 50 provides that the assessed value of property shall be the lesser of the real market

value and the maximum assessed value. ORS 308.146(2).1 The maximum assessed value can

increase no more than three percent per year unless one of the exceptions set forth in ORS

308.146(3) applies:

1

The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2013.

FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150290D 4

“(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the maximum

assessed value and assessed value of property shall be determined as provided in

ORS 308.149 to 308.166 if:

“(a) The property is new property or new improvements to property;

“(b) The property is partitioned or subdivided;

“(c) The property is rezoned and used consistently with the rezoning;

“(d) The property is first taken into account as omitted property;

“(e) The property becomes disqualified from exemption, partial exemption or

special assessment; or

“(f) A lot line adjustment is made with respect to the property, except that the

total assessed value of all property affected by a lot line adjustment shall not

exceed the total maximum assessed value of the affected property under

subsection (1) of this section.”

Defendant alleges that the subject property was partitioned and its maximum assessed value was

therefore subject to redetermination according to ORS 308.156. See ORS 308.146(3)(b). ORS

308.156(1) states:

“If property is subdivided or partitioned after January 1 of the

preceding assessment year and on or before January 1 of the current

assessment year, then the property’s maximum assessed value shall be

established as provided under this section.”

(Emphasis added.) Property and property tax account are defined in ORS 308.142:

“For purposes of determining whether the assessed value of property

exceeds the property’s maximum assessed value permitted under section 11,

Article XI of the Oregon Constitution:

“(1) ‘Property’ means:

“(a) All property included within a single property tax account; * * *

“* * * * *

“(2) ‘Property tax account’ means the administrative division of property

for purposes of listing on the assessment roll under ORS 308.215 for the tax year

for which maximum assessed value is being determined * * *.”

FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150290D 5

The term partition is not defined in either the Measure 50 constitutional provisions or the

property tax statutes. When construing a constitutional provision enacted by initiative measure

such as Measure 50, the objective of the court is to determine the intent of the voters. See, e.g.,

Comeaux v. Water Wonderland Improvement Dist., 315 Or 562, 568–69, 847 P2d 841 (1993)

(considering other constitutional provisions as context supporting court’s construction of ‘what

the people meant’ by a voter-inititated amendment). The best evidence of the intent of the voters

is the law’s text. Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Frank, 293 Or 374, 381, 648 P2d 1284 (1982)

(holding court must give “preeminent attention to the language which the legislature and the

people have adopted”). The court follows the rule that words of common usage are typically

given their “plain, natural, and ordinary meaning.” PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317

Or 606, 611, 859 P2d 1143 (1993).

Plaintiff suggests that the court look to ORS 92.010(3), (4), (6), and (12) for guidance in

defining partition. In those statutes, partition is defined as part of the statutory land-planning

provisions. The court has previously placed “little reliance” on that definition because the

definition specifically applies to the statutory provisions from ORS 92.010 to ORS 92.192. See

Banks v. Multnomah County Assessor, TC-MD 000349E at 4 n 5 (July 31, 2000). Those statutes

are not applicable to the issue before this court.

The definition of partition must be considered within the context of other provisions of

ORS 308.146. The partitioning of property is one of six events that trigger the exception to the

general rule for calculating maximum assessed value. See ORS 308.146(3). Each of the six

events represents a change in value of property—through constructing new improvements,

partitioning or subdividing, rezoning, recognizing property that previously existed but was

omitted from the tax rolls, disqualifying property from exemption or special assessment, or

FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150290D 6

making lot line adjustments. The word partition is defined as “to divide into parts or shares[.]”

Webster’s Third Int’l Dictionary 1647 (unabridged ed 2002). See Schug v. Lincoln County

Assessor (Schug), TC-MD 000215D, WL 33244301 (Oct 23, 2000) (finding dictionary definition

of partition applicable in absence of statutory definition).

In the case before the court, a partition did not occur in 2013. The August 2013 Deed

recorded all, not a portion, of Tax Lot 100 (21.30 acres) being transferred from Estate to

Plaintiff. Defendant was unaware that as of January 2, 2013, Tax Lot 100 was 21.30 acres—not

21.65 acres—because the small portion (0.35 acre) of Tax Lot 100 that was transferred to Tax

Lot 400 was not recorded in 2008. Instead, it was “monumented” in a Map of Survey filed with

Development Services—but not Defendant—on December 14, 2009. The August 2013 Deed did

not partition Tax Lot 100; it transferred the entire tax lot to Plaintiff from Estate.

B. Lot line adjustment

A lot line adjustment is defined as follows by ORS 308.149(4):

“ ‘Lot line adjustment’ means any addition to the square footage of the

land for a real property tax account and a corresponding subtraction of square

footage of the land from a contiguous real property tax account.”

Plaintiff asserts that the 2008 Deed effected a lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 400 and 100,

because the two lots were contiguous, and because the deed added square footage to Tax Lot 400

while subtracting the same amount of square footage from Tax Lot 100.

Administrative approval of an action as a lot line adjustment weighs in favor of a

conclusion that the action constitutes a lot line adjustment, rather than a partition. Cf. Schug,

2000 WL 33244301; Klein v. Jackson County Assessor, TC-MD 080478B (August 21, 2009)

(finding lot line adjustment instead of partition where county had given prior administrative

approval to adjust lot line). In this case, the 2009 survey—which was taken to monument the

FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150290D 7

2008 Deed’s lot line adjustment between Lot 400 and Lot 100—was approved by Development

Services on December 14, 2009.

The cumulative effect of the 2008 deed and approval of Development Services in 2009

was to change the boundary of one tax lot so that the property line did not dissect the dwelling on

that property. The lot line adjustment was completed years prior to 2013. A lot line adjustment

is one of the exceptions listed in ORS 308.146(3). An adjustment to the tax account related to

the lot line adjustment should have occurred at the time of the event, not in 2013.

C. Real market value

The court need not address the subject property’s real market value, having concluded

that a partition did not result from recording the August 2013 Deed and a lot line adjustment did

not occur in 2013.

III. CONCLUSION

After careful review of the testimony and evidence, the court concludes that Defendant

erroneously determined a partition had occurred resulting in the creation of a new tax lot. Now,

therefore,

IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that the subject property was not partitioned in

2013 and cannot be assessed as exception value under ORS 308.156.

///

///

///

///

///

///

FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150290D 8

IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that the county shall correct the assessment and tax rolls to

properly state Plaintiff’s Account 10999493 under ORS 308.159.

Dated this day of January 2016.

RICHARD DAVIS

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. TCR-MD 19 B.

This document was filed and entered on January 12, 2016.

FINAL DECISION TC-MD 150290D 9