Secrest v. Benton County Assessor

Jul 20, 2026

TC-MD 260537G

DECISION

This matter came before the court on Defendant‘s Motion to Dismiss, alleging Plaintiffs’ Complaint was untimely filed. Plaintiffs appealed the 2025-26 real market value of property identified as Account 28518.

I. FACTS

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Benton County Property Value Appeals Board (PVAB). On the face of that order there is a statement that the order was “[m]ailed or delivered” on either April 3 or April 8, 2026—the handwritten number is unclear. (Compl at 5.) Plaintiffs allege that they received the PVAB order on April 15, 2026, enclosed in an envelope dated April 8, 2026. (Ptfs’ Response at 3.)

Plaintiffs’ Complaint arrived at the court via Federal Express on May 13, 2026. (Compl at 39.) The envelope containing the Complaint indicates a “ship date” of May 10, 2026. (Id.)

II. ANALYSIS

The only issue is whether Plaintiffs’ Complaint is timely. Plaintiffs have not alleged their appeal was delayed by extraordinary circumstances beyond their control. Cf. ORS 305.288(3).¹

The period for filing an appeal from a PVAB order is “within 30 days after * * * the date of mailing of the order, the date of publication of notice of the order, the date the order is personally delivered to the taxpayer or the date of mailing of the notice of the order to the taxpayer, whichever is applicable.” ORS 305.280(4). The court deems a complaint to be filed on the date it was mailed or dispatched via a private express carrier. ORS 305.418(2).

Where a PVAB order is mailed, the applicable date for computing the appeals period is the date of mailing rather than the date of delivery. See ORS 305.280(4); Emmert v. Clackamas County Assessor, TC-MD 180196R, 2018 WL 4043394 (Or Tax M Div Aug 24, 2018) (holding 30-day appeals period “starts upon the ‘mailing of the order’ “). If the statutory phrase “the date the order is personally delivered” were construed to include the date a mailed order is delivered, it would render superfluous another phrase from the statute: “the date of mailing of the order[.]” See id. Such a construction is implausible and would violate the court‘s duty to “give effect to all” statutory provisions and not “to omit what has been inserted” into a statute. See ORS 174.010.²

Here, Plaintiffs’ deadline to appeal their PVAB order was 30 days after the order‘s date of mailing. Accepting the later of the two possible dates, that deadline fell on Friday, May 8, 2026. See ORS 305.280(4). Plaintiffs’ Complaint is deemed filed on May 10, 2026, which is the date of dispatch indicated on the Federal Express envelope in which the Complaint was transmitted. See ORS 305.418(2). Because Plaintiffs transmitted their Complaint after the deadline, the Complaint is untimely.

/ / /

III. CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiffs’ Complaint was transmitted after their appeal deadline, Defendant is entitled to dismissal. Now, therefore,

IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed.

POUL F. LUNDGREN

MAGISTRATE

To appeal this Decision, file a complaint in the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court. Appeals are accepted by electronic filing; by mail at 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563; and by hand delivery to 1241 State Street, Salem, OR, Floor 4R.

Your complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of this Decision or this Decision cannot be changed. TCR-MD 19 B.

This document was signed by Magistrate Poul F. Lundgren and entered on July 20, 2026.

Notes

The court‘s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2025.

A more plausible construction of the personal delivery referenced in ORS 305.280(4) would be delivery of the order directly to a taxpayer (or taxpayer‘s representative) by the PVAB clerk, unmediated by the postal service. The sense of personal as unmediated is also found in the evidentiary concept of “personal knowledge.”