Preview:

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax TERRY W. EMMERT, Plaintiff, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TC-MD 090570C

DECISION OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the court on Defendant's written Motion to Dismiss (motion) Plaintiff's property value appeal concerning certain real property identified as assessor's Account R209994, for the 2008-09 tax year. An initial proceeding was held in the matter July 30, 2009. Plaintiff filed a written response to Defendant's motion on September 1, 2009, by and through his attorney Larry R. Davidson (Davidson). The court heard argument on the motion November 16, 2009. Plaintiff was represented by Davidson. Defendant was represented by Richard Sanderman and Barron Hartwell, appraisers with the county assessor's office. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS The appeal involves a lot with several small, uninhabitable residential buildings that were apparently demolished by vandals. Due to the poor condition of the structures, and ongoing violations of applicable building codes, Plaintiff was ordered by city officials to remove the buildings. While the violations were outstanding, Plaintiff incurred monthly code enforcement fees. Plaintiff filed demolition permits in August 2007. However, due to unrelated extenuating circumstances involving local government officials, the buildings were not actually removed until May or June of 2008. Pictures of the buildings support Plaintiff's contention that the

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 090570C

1

structures were in a deplorable condition and unlivable. Clearly the value of the buildings was negligible, if not negative (due to lack of value and cost of removal). Defendant acknowledges that fact. Plaintiff has requested that the court order the value of the improvements (the buildings) be removed from the assessment and tax rolls. In his Complaint, Plaintiff requested that the real market value (RMV) of the buildings be removed, and, during argument at the November 2009 hearing, requested that there be a proportionate reduction in the assessed value (AV). In its motion, Defendant asserts Plaintiff is not aggrieved because the requested reduction in RMV would not produce a corresponding reduction in property taxes. Plaintiff's short response is that the proportionate reduction in AV would generate a tax savings. The dispute focuses on the meaning and interpretation of ORS 308.146(8)(a)1

Download 090570CEmmertDEC.pdf

Oregon Law