Dar Makkah Assn. v. Multnomah County Assessor

• Court: Oregon Tax Court
• Decided: September 5, 2018
• Docket: TC-MD 180280G
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax

DAR MAKKAH ASSOCIATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 180280G ) v. ) ) MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) ) Defendant. ) FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL1

Plaintiff withdrew its Complaint by letter, stating: “Please cancel this case per this

request and mail refund if possible * * *. The property tax on this property has been corrected

by the county and no taxes are owed anymore.” Construing Plaintiff’s request for a refund as a

request for an award of its filing fee, the court issued its Decision of Dismissal, which provided

Defendant with a 14-day period in which to file an objection. Defendant did not file an

objection.

Tax Court Rule–Magistrate Division (TCR–MD) 16 B permits this court to award costs

and disbursements “to the prevailing party[.]” Thus, to receive an award of a filing fee, a party

must be designated as “prevailing.” In the analogous situation of attorney fee awards, “the

prevailing party is the party who receives a favorable judgment or arbitration award on a claim.”

ORS 20.077(2). A party prevails who persuades the court to either grant affirmative relief or

reject an opponent’s claim for such relief. Ellison v. Dept. of Rev., 362 Or 148, 166, 404 P3d

933 (2017), opinion adh’d to as modified on recons, 362 Or 527, 412 P3d 201 (2018).

A plaintiff who obtains relief from the defendant rather than the court is differently

situated. Some courts in other jurisdictions hold that such plaintiffs are prevailing parties under

1 The court’s Decision of Dismissal was entered August 17, 2018.

FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 180280G 1 the “catalyst theory”:

“Where a defendant voluntarily complies with a plaintiff's requested relief, thereby rendering the plaintiff's lawsuit moot, the plaintiff is a ‘prevailing party’ * * * if his suit is a catalyst for the defendant’s voluntary compliance and the defendant’s compliance was not gratuitous, meaning the plaintiff’s suit was neither frivolous, unreasonable nor groundless.”

Little Rock School Dist. v. Special School Dist. 1, 17 F3d 260, 262–63 (8th Cir 1994), quoted in

Brennan v. La Tourelle Apartments, 184 Or App 235, 244, 56 P3d 423 (2002). However,

“Oregon does not * * * follow that so-called ‘catalyst’ doctrine.” FedEx Ground Package

System, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 OTR 547, 550 n 3 (2012) (citing Clapper v. Oregon State

Police, 228 Or App 172, 206 P3d 1135 (2009)).

Here, Plaintiff withdrew its Complaint after receiving relief from Defendant and therefore

could only be designated as prevailing under the catalyst theory. Because Oregon does not

follow that theory, Plaintiff cannot be designated a prevailing party in this case. This court is not

authorized to award Plaintiff costs and disbursements. See TCR–MD 16 B. Now, therefore,

IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Plaintiff’s request for its filing fee is denied.

Dated this day of September, 2018.

POUL F. LUNDGREN MAGISTRATE

If you want to appeal this Final Decision of Dismissal, file a complaint in the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563; or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 State Street, Salem, OR. Your complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of the Final Decision of Dismissal or this Final Decision of Dismissal cannot be changed. TCR-MD 19 B. This document was signed by Magistrate Poul F. Lundgren and entered on September 5, 2018.

FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 180280G 2