Curtis v. Dept. of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court

Curtis v. Dept. of Revenue

19 Or. Tax 132, 2006 Ore. Tax LEXIS 219

CourtOregon Tax Court

DecidedAugust 23, 2006

DocketNo. TC 4765.

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Or. Tax 132 (Curtis v. Dept. of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curtis v. Dept. of Revenue, 19 Or. Tax 132, 2006 Ore. Tax LEXIS 219 (Or. Super. Ct. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

This matter is before the court on the objections filed by the plaintiff (taxpayer) with respect to the form of judgment submitted by the defendant (the department) in this *Page 133 matter after the issuance of the court's Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (the Order Dismissing).

Following the filing of a complaint by the taxpayer, the department filed a motion to dismiss. Within the time allowed for response, taxpayer made no response.¹ The department then filed a document entitled Motion to Dismiss, in the body of which it stated it "renews its motion to dismiss" taxpayer's complaint. The court entered and mailed its Order Dismissing and later that day received written objections from the taxpayer to "both of the defendant's motions to dismiss." Measured from the submission of the "renewal" these objections were timely. The department has now filed a form of judgment based on the Order Dismissing, to which taxpayer also objects.

1-3. As noted, the rules of this court provided taxpayer with a limited time within which to object to the initial Motion to Dismiss and taxpayer did not file timely objections. Those rules do not contemplate a "renewal" of a motion and the action of the department in filing such a document served to muddy the procedural water. The court concludes that the second "motion" was a nullity and did not serve to extend the time for response by the taxpayer. However, given the possibility of confusion on the part of the taxpayer and taking into account the provisions of TCR 12, the court has considered the objections of the taxpayer to the action of the department in seeking dismissal of the case. The court has also considered the arguments made by the taxpayer as to the form of judgment.

Based upon consideration of all writings submitted by the parties, the court concludes that its Order Dismissing was properly decided and entered. The complaint of the tax-payer is dismissed and the form of judgment submitted by the department shall be entered.

Now, therefore,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

¹ Taxpayer incorrectly argues that she had 30 days within which to respond. The time for response under TCR 14 is 10 days. *Page 134

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This matter is before the court on the objections filed by the plaintiff (taxpayer) with respect to the form of judgment submitted by the defendant (the department) in this *Page 133 matter after the issuance of the court's Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (the Order Dismissing).

Following the filing of a complaint by the taxpayer, the department filed a motion to dismiss. Within the time allowed for response, taxpayer made no response.¹ The department then filed a document entitled Motion to Dismiss, in the body of which it stated it "renews its motion to dismiss" taxpayer's complaint. The court entered and mailed its Order Dismissing and later that day received written objections from the taxpayer to "both of the defendant's motions to dismiss." Measured from the submission of the "renewal" these objections were timely. The department has now filed a form of judgment based on the Order Dismissing, to which taxpayer also objects.

1-3. As noted, the rules of this court provided taxpayer with a limited time within which to object to the initial Motion to Dismiss and taxpayer did not file timely objections. Those rules do not contemplate a "renewal" of a motion and the action of the department in filing such a document served to muddy the procedural water. The court concludes that the second "motion" was a nullity and did not serve to extend the time for response by the taxpayer. However, given the possibility of confusion on the part of the taxpayer and taking into account the provisions of TCR 12, the court has considered the objections of the taxpayer to the action of the department in seeking dismissal of the case. The court has also considered the arguments made by the taxpayer as to the form of judgment.

Based upon consideration of all writings submitted by the parties, the court concludes that its Order Dismissing was properly decided and entered. The complaint of the tax-payer is dismissed and the form of judgment submitted by the department shall be entered.

Now, therefore,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

¹ Taxpayer incorrectly argues that she had 30 days within which to respond. The time for response under TCR 14 is 10 days. *Page 134

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Or. Tax 132, 2006 Ore. Tax LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-dept-of-revenue-ortc-2006.