Woody Family Properties, LLC v. Jackson County Assessor
TC-MD 200188N
Or. T.C.Jan 21, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (Woody Family Properties, LLC and Alvin R. Woody) bought the subject property in 2005 for $960,000; prior 2004–05 RMV was $433,500 and MAV/AV increased for 2006–07.
- Plaintiffs later discovered (in 2018) that the 2006–07 MAV increase resulted from an appraiser’s erroneous application of a rezoning "exception" that reset MAV in 2006–07.
- Plaintiffs sought records, appealed assessments, and requested the assessor correct the 2006–07 error and adjust subsequent MAVs/AVs, seeking a tax refund for overpayments.
- Defendant (Jackson County Assessor) acknowledged the error but contended it lacked statutory authority to correct rolls reaching back to 2006 under ORS 311.205 and that Plaintiffs’ appeals were untimely.
- The court on summary judgment held it lacked authority to correct 2006–07 through 2013–14 but ruled the assessor may correct 2014–15 through 2019–20 under ORS 311.205 if the correction reduces tax liability.
- Case disposition: Motion for summary judgment granted in part (dismissal of 2006–07–2013–14 claims) and denied in part (allowing corrections for 2014–15–2019–20); parties ordered to confer and report next steps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the court order correction of the 2006–07 MAV and related years? | Plaintiffs seek correction of the 2006–07 error and tax refunds for subsequent years. | The appeal/correction is untimely; court lacks authority to reach back to 2006 (statutory limits). | Court: 2006–07 through 2013–14 cannot be corrected by the court; those claims dismissed. |
| May the assessor correct rolls under ORS 311.205 where the underlying error occurred before the five-year window? | Error is correctible and should be fixed for affected later years. | ORS 311.205 limits corrections to the prior five certified rolls; assessor cannot reach back to 2006. | Court: ORS 311.205 limits years open for correction (five years) but does not forbid correcting current open years based on an older error; assessor may correct 2014–15 through 2019–20. |
| Is the 2006–07 error a clerical error (correctible) or a valuation-judgment error (less easily correctible)? | Plaintiffs contend the error is evident in records (clerical). | Assessor contends it was a valuation judgment and necessary records don’t show the error. | Court: Unclear on record completeness; but ORS 311.205 permits correction of valuation judgments if correction reduces tax, so assessor may correct open years under either theory. |
| Are Plaintiffs entitled to relief based on lack of notice, continuing-offense, equitable tolling/estoppel? | Plaintiffs assert notice defects, continuing-offense, equitable tolling and estoppel to overcome deadlines. | Assessor complied with tax-statement notice rules; doctrines cited are inapplicable or unavailable in this tax context. | Court: No notice violation; continuing-offense inapplicable (criminal doctrine); equitable tolling/estoppel not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dish Network v. Department of Revenue, 364 Or. 254, 434 P.3d 379 (2019) (no statutory requirement to separately notify owners when new property is added to the roll)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (standard for equitable tolling)
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) (continuing-offense doctrine limited to criminal statutes)
- U.S. v. Morales, 11 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 1993) (application and limits of continuing-offense doctrine)
- Johnson v. State Tax Commission, 248 Or. 460, 435 P.2d 302 (1967) (equitable estoppel standards against taxing authorities)
- DeArmond v. Department of Revenue, 328 Or. 60, 968 P.2d 1280 (1998) (equitable tolling narrowly applied in tax cases)