Clackamas County Assessor v. Village at Main Street Phase II, LLC
282 P.3d 814
Or.2012Background
- Village challenged Clackamas County’s 2005–2006 property tax assessment for site developments (grading, utilities, roads, etc.).
- County initially valued the land but not the site developments; later attempted to add omitted property under ORS 311.216 in 2007, increasing assessed value and taxes.
- Magistrate Division ruled in Village’s favor, holding site developments were not omitted property under ORS 311.216.
- Tax Court (Regular Division) agreed: county undervalued rather than omitted, affirming magistrate’s reasoning and sides against Village.
- Village sought attorney fees under ORS 305.490(4); Tax Court awarded fees primarily citing Wheeler I and deemed county’s relitigation worthy of fee shifting.
- Supplemental judgment ordered Department of Revenue to pay the fees, with county named as judgment debtor; department intervened on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wheeler I-based fee award was proper | Village argues ORS 20.075 factors control; Wheeler I misapplied. | County/Department contend Wheeler I supports fees for relitigation of lost positions. | No; Wheeler I was misapplied and fees cannot rely on it. |
| Whether the county’s position was objectively reasonable under ORS 20.075(1)(b) | Village claims lack of objective reasonableness supports fees. | County contends its interpretation was reasonable, even if ultimately wrong. | The county’s position was objectively reasonable; ORS 20.075(1)(b) cannot justify fee award. |
| Whether any ORS 20.075(1) factors support fees, given no other factors favor the award | Village relies on several ORS 20.075 factors to justify fees. | County/Department argue no factor supports award since position was reasonable and not frivolous. | None of the factors support an award; the court abused its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- West Foods v. Dept. of Rev., 10 OTR 7 (1985) (omitted property analysis under ORS 311.216)
- Preble v. Dept. of Rev., 331 Or 599 (2001) (discretionary fees when government misinterpretation is reasonable)
- Necanicum Investment Co. v. Employment Dept., 345 Or 518 (2008) (fee awards discouraged where agency position is reasonable)
- McKean-Coffman v. Employment Div., 314 Or 645 (1992) (fees not awarded when agency’s position was reasonable)
- Swarens v. Dept. of Rev., 320 Or 669 (1995) (agency error reasonable may foreclose fee award)
- Wheeler I, 10 OTR 129 (2004) (fee rule based on relitigating a magistrate’s well-reasoned decision not enough)
- Barbara Parmenter Living Trust v. Lemon, 345 Or 334 (2008) (ORS 20.075(1)(h) not used to justify fee decisions on incorrect premises)