IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax
ECOBANK, LLC, an Oregon Limited ) Liability Company, and LEGACY LAND ) CONSERVANCY, an Oregon nonprofit, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) TC-MD 190300N ) v. ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) JUDGMENT and GRANTING ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR Defendant. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs appeal the disqualification of property identified as Account 1742320 (subject
property) from conservation easement special assessment for the 2019-20 tax year. (Compl at 1.)
The parties submitted this case to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment and waived
oral argument. This matter is now ready for the court’s determination.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A conservation easement was recorded on the subject property on March 21, 2013.
(Def’s MSJ at 2; Ex 101.) “The easement is enforceable by Legacy Land Conservancy, the
Oregon Department of State Lands, and United States Army Corps of Engineers.” (Ptfs’ MSJ at
6.) Plaintiffs requested special assessment on March 21, 2013. (Ptfs’ MSJ at 6.) Their
application was accepted by Defendant “for the tax year beginning July 1, 2013.” (Id. at 7, citing
Ex 105.) Legacy Land Conservancy (Legacy) is the conservation easement holder and Ecobank
is the owner within the meaning of ORS 308A.450(2) and 271.715. (Def’s MSJ at 2; Ex 101.1)
On October 7, 2015, Defendant mailed a written request for certification to Legacy at PO
Box 2372, Albany, OR 97321. (Def’s MSJ at 2; Decl of Rebecca Smith ¶2; Ex 102.) Defendant
1 See also Ptfs’ Resp to Def’s Informal Discovery Requests at 3.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 1 received the requested certification on December 21, 2015. (Id.) Plaintiffs did not submit
another written certification between December 22, 2015, and March 4, 2019. (Ptfs’ Resp to
Def’s Informal Discovery Requests at 3; see also Def’s MSJ at 2, citing Decl of Rebecca Smith.)
Defendant prepared a letter to Legacy dated March 4, 2019, requesting certification.
(Def’s MSJ at 3; Decl of Smith ¶5; Ex 103.) The letter was addressed to PO Box 2372, Albany,
OR 97321, which was Legacy’s correct address at that time. (Id.; see also Ptfs’ Resp to Def’s
Informal Discovery Requests at 3-4.) Defendant maintains that it mailed the letter, but Plaintiffs
deny that they received it. (See Def’s MSJ, Decl of Smith at ¶5; Ptfs’ MSJ, Decl of Acker at ¶3.)
Having received no certification from Legacy, Defendant sent a disqualification notice to
Ecobank on June 10, 2019. (See Compl at 4-5.) The notice stated that the subject property was
disqualified in accordance with ORS 308A.465(4) based on Plaintiffs’ failure “to provide the
certification described in subsection 308A.465(2)(a) of this section within 90 days following the
close of the three-year period or the date of the written request, whichever is earlier.” (Id.)
After receiving the notice, Plaintiffs corresponded with a “Farm/Forest Specialist” at
Defendant’s office. (See Ptfs’ MSJ, Ex 106 at 1.) Plaintiffs maintain that Ecobank first saw a
copy of the March 4, 2019, letter on June 25, 2019, through that correspondence. (Ptfs’ MSJ at
8, citing Ex 106 and Decl of Acker ¶5.) On June 25, 2019, Defendant’s appraiser wrote to
Plaintiffs stating, “[o]nce we receive the completed certification and the $100 application fee we
will be able to reverse the disqualification.” (Ptfs’ MSJ, Ex 106 at 1.) Plaintiffs sent the
certification and fee on June 26, 2019. (See Ptfs’ MSJ at 8, Exs 106-108.) Defendant
nevertheless declined to reverse the disqualification, explaining in an email dated July 16, 2019,
that once it disqualified a property from special assessment, it could “not requalify for the
///
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 2 program until they have recorded a new Conservation Easement and paid the declass amount.”
(Ptfs’ MSJ, Ex 108.)
II. ANALYSIS
The issue presented is whether Defendant properly disqualified the subject property from
conservation easement special assessment for the 2019-20 tax year based on Plaintiffs’ failure to
provide the required certification within the time provided under ORS 308A.465(2)(a). 2
A. The Parties’ Arguments, Standard for Summary Judgment
This matter is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argue
that they are entitled to summary judgment “because they have met all requirements for
maintaining a conservation easement and have properly filed written certifications every three
years as required by statute.” (Ptfs’ MSJ at 4.) Defendant maintains that it is entitled to
summary judgment because its June 10, 2019, notice correctly disqualified the subject property
from conservation easement special assessment under ORS 308A.465. (Def’s MSJ at 1.)
Plaintiffs make three arguments in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. First,
Defendant’s letter dated March 4, 2019, was not received by Legacy so it was insufficient notice
to disqualify the subject property based on its failure to respond within 90 days. (Ptfs’ MSJ at 5,
13.) Second, the “three-year period” in ORS 308A.465 corresponds to tax years, so Plaintiffs’
certification filed in June 2019, was timely for the 2019-20 tax year. (See id. at 10-11.) Third,
the statutory scheme violates the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US
Constitution because it does not provide for any notice to the property owner, Ecobank – only to
the certificate holder, Legacy – before disqualification from special assessment and imposition of
back taxes. (Id. at 14-15.)
2 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2017.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 3 Defendant argues that Legacy did not timely respond within 90 days of Defendant’s
written request for certification, so the subsequent disqualification was valid. (Def’s MSJ at 4.)
Defendant further argues that its written request was not a “notice” because is not required to
send it; the certification is due every three years in any event. (Id. at 4-5.) In response to
Plaintiffs’ argument concerning the “three-year period,” Defendant maintains it is calculated
from the date of the last certification; in this case, the close of the three-year period fell on
December 21, 2018. (Id. at 4.) With respect to Plaintiffs’ third argument, Defendant disagrees
that Plaintiffs have a valid due process right in special assessment, noting that tax exemptions 3
are a matter of legislative grace and “a benefit, not a property right.” (Def’s Resp at 1-2.)
The court shall grant summary judgment
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax
ECOBANK, LLC, an Oregon Limited ) Liability Company, and LEGACY LAND ) CONSERVANCY, an Oregon nonprofit, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) TC-MD 190300N ) v. ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) JUDGMENT and GRANTING ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR Defendant. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs appeal the disqualification of property identified as Account 1742320 (subject
property) from conservation easement special assessment for the 2019-20 tax year. (Compl at 1.)
The parties submitted this case to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment and waived
oral argument. This matter is now ready for the court’s determination.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A conservation easement was recorded on the subject property on March 21, 2013.
(Def’s MSJ at 2; Ex 101.) “The easement is enforceable by Legacy Land Conservancy, the
Oregon Department of State Lands, and United States Army Corps of Engineers.” (Ptfs’ MSJ at
6.) Plaintiffs requested special assessment on March 21, 2013. (Ptfs’ MSJ at 6.) Their
application was accepted by Defendant “for the tax year beginning July 1, 2013.” (Id. at 7, citing
Ex 105.) Legacy Land Conservancy (Legacy) is the conservation easement holder and Ecobank
is the owner within the meaning of ORS 308A.450(2) and 271.715. (Def’s MSJ at 2; Ex 101.1)
On October 7, 2015, Defendant mailed a written request for certification to Legacy at PO
Box 2372, Albany, OR 97321. (Def’s MSJ at 2; Decl of Rebecca Smith ¶2; Ex 102.) Defendant
1 See also Ptfs’ Resp to Def’s Informal Discovery Requests at 3.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 1 received the requested certification on December 21, 2015. (Id.) Plaintiffs did not submit
another written certification between December 22, 2015, and March 4, 2019. (Ptfs’ Resp to
Def’s Informal Discovery Requests at 3; see also Def’s MSJ at 2, citing Decl of Rebecca Smith.)
Defendant prepared a letter to Legacy dated March 4, 2019, requesting certification.
(Def’s MSJ at 3; Decl of Smith ¶5; Ex 103.) The letter was addressed to PO Box 2372, Albany,
OR 97321, which was Legacy’s correct address at that time. (Id.; see also Ptfs’ Resp to Def’s
Informal Discovery Requests at 3-4.) Defendant maintains that it mailed the letter, but Plaintiffs
deny that they received it. (See Def’s MSJ, Decl of Smith at ¶5; Ptfs’ MSJ, Decl of Acker at ¶3.)
Having received no certification from Legacy, Defendant sent a disqualification notice to
Ecobank on June 10, 2019. (See Compl at 4-5.) The notice stated that the subject property was
disqualified in accordance with ORS 308A.465(4) based on Plaintiffs’ failure “to provide the
certification described in subsection 308A.465(2)(a) of this section within 90 days following the
close of the three-year period or the date of the written request, whichever is earlier.” (Id.)
After receiving the notice, Plaintiffs corresponded with a “Farm/Forest Specialist” at
Defendant’s office. (See Ptfs’ MSJ, Ex 106 at 1.) Plaintiffs maintain that Ecobank first saw a
copy of the March 4, 2019, letter on June 25, 2019, through that correspondence. (Ptfs’ MSJ at
8, citing Ex 106 and Decl of Acker ¶5.) On June 25, 2019, Defendant’s appraiser wrote to
Plaintiffs stating, “[o]nce we receive the completed certification and the $100 application fee we
will be able to reverse the disqualification.” (Ptfs’ MSJ, Ex 106 at 1.) Plaintiffs sent the
certification and fee on June 26, 2019. (See Ptfs’ MSJ at 8, Exs 106-108.) Defendant
nevertheless declined to reverse the disqualification, explaining in an email dated July 16, 2019,
that once it disqualified a property from special assessment, it could “not requalify for the
///
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 2 program until they have recorded a new Conservation Easement and paid the declass amount.”
(Ptfs’ MSJ, Ex 108.)
II. ANALYSIS
The issue presented is whether Defendant properly disqualified the subject property from
conservation easement special assessment for the 2019-20 tax year based on Plaintiffs’ failure to
provide the required certification within the time provided under ORS 308A.465(2)(a). 2
A. The Parties’ Arguments, Standard for Summary Judgment
This matter is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argue
that they are entitled to summary judgment “because they have met all requirements for
maintaining a conservation easement and have properly filed written certifications every three
years as required by statute.” (Ptfs’ MSJ at 4.) Defendant maintains that it is entitled to
summary judgment because its June 10, 2019, notice correctly disqualified the subject property
from conservation easement special assessment under ORS 308A.465. (Def’s MSJ at 1.)
Plaintiffs make three arguments in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. First,
Defendant’s letter dated March 4, 2019, was not received by Legacy so it was insufficient notice
to disqualify the subject property based on its failure to respond within 90 days. (Ptfs’ MSJ at 5,
13.) Second, the “three-year period” in ORS 308A.465 corresponds to tax years, so Plaintiffs’
certification filed in June 2019, was timely for the 2019-20 tax year. (See id. at 10-11.) Third,
the statutory scheme violates the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US
Constitution because it does not provide for any notice to the property owner, Ecobank – only to
the certificate holder, Legacy – before disqualification from special assessment and imposition of
back taxes. (Id. at 14-15.)
2 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2017.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 3 Defendant argues that Legacy did not timely respond within 90 days of Defendant’s
written request for certification, so the subsequent disqualification was valid. (Def’s MSJ at 4.)
Defendant further argues that its written request was not a “notice” because is not required to
send it; the certification is due every three years in any event. (Id. at 4-5.) In response to
Plaintiffs’ argument concerning the “three-year period,” Defendant maintains it is calculated
from the date of the last certification; in this case, the close of the three-year period fell on
December 21, 2018. (Id. at 4.) With respect to Plaintiffs’ third argument, Defendant disagrees
that Plaintiffs have a valid due process right in special assessment, noting that tax exemptions 3
are a matter of legislative grace and “a benefit, not a property right.” (Def’s Resp at 1-2.)
The court shall grant summary judgment
“if the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, declarations, and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. No genuine issue as to a material fact exists if, based upon the record before the court viewed in a manner most favorable to the adverse party, no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party on the matter * * *.”
Tax Court Rule 47 C. The only fact that appears to be in dispute is whether Defendant mailed its
written request for certification to Legacy on March 4, 2019. In considering each party’s motion,
the court construes that fact in the light most favorable to the opposing party.
B. Principles of Statutory Construction
The issue presented is one of first impression and concerns the proper construction of
ORS 308A.465. When interpreting a statute, the court’s “paramount goal” is to discern the
legislature’s intent. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171, 206 P3d 1042 (2009); see also PGE v.
Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (citations omitted). The
3 Defendant refers to exemptions but presumably means to extend the same principles to special assessments, such as the one at issue here.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 4 court begins with the text and context as “the best evidence of the legislature’s intent.” PGE,
371 Or at 610; see also Gaines, 346 Or at 171 (“[o]nly the text of a statute receives the
consideration and approval of a majority of the members of the legislature, as required to have
the effect of law”). In construing the text, words of common usage are “given their plain,
natural, and ordinary meaning.” PGE, 317 Or at 611. Context “includes prior versions of
the statute, applicable case law interpreting the statute, and other related statutes.” North
Harbour Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 91, 96 (2002). “[A]fter examining text and context,”
the court may consider the legislative history of the statute. Gaines, 346 Or at 171-172; ORS
174.020. 4 Finally, “the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in
resolving the remaining uncertainty.” Gaines, 346 Or at 172. The court must not “insert what
has been omitted, or * * * omit what has been inserted” and “give effect to each provision in
each relevant statute.” ORS 174.010; D.R. Johnson Lumber Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 318 Or 330,
335, 866 P2d 1227 (1994).
C. Conservation Easement Special Assessment, Generally
Land subject to a conservation easement held by a holder specified in ORS 271.715 5 and
“managed in compliance with the terms of the easement, shall receive conservation easement
special assessment for ad valorem tax purposes.” ORS 308A.453(1). The easement “must be
capable of meeting the requirements for being considered exclusively for conservation purposes”
under IRC section 170(h) “if the land or easement were ever to be the subject of a contribution.”
ORS 308A.453(2)(a). A written certification must be filed with the assessor stating that the
easement satisfies that requirement. ORS 308A.453(2)(c). The easement must be recorded.
4 Neither party offered legislative history in this case. 5 Those holders include the state and other specified public entities, certain charitable organizations, and Indian tribes defined under ORS 97.740. See ORS 271.715(3).
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 5 ORS 308A.453(2)(b). Once those requirements are satisfied, the owner may apply for special
assessment to the assessor by April 1 of the assessment year for which special assessment is
requested. ORS 308A.456(1)-(3). Whether land qualifies for special assessment is determined
as of January 1 of the assessment year. ORS 308A.456(5).
The certificate holder must provide written certification to the assessor that the subject
property is being managed in accordance with the terms of the conservation easement and that
the easement continues to qualify for special assessment. ORS 308A.465(2)(a). The
certification is due on the earlier of “90 days following the close of the three-year period or the
date of the written request” from the assessor. ORS 308A.465(2)(a), (4)(a). The statute does not
set forth requirements for the form or manner of the assessor’s “written request.” If the holder
fails to timely provide the certification, the assessor “shall disqualify the land from conservation
easement special assessment.” ORS 308A.465(4)(a). If land is disqualified before July 1 of the
assessment year, the land shall be valued at its real market value and assessed at its assessed
value for that year. ORS 308A.456(5). If land is disqualified after July 1, it shall continue to
qualify for special assessment for the current tax year. Id.
“Assessment year” means “calendar year[,]” whereas “tax year” is “a period of 12
months beginning on July 1.” ORS 308.007(1)(b), (c). “For purposes of property taxation,
unless the context requires otherwise, the assessment year beginning January 1 corresponds to
the tax year beginning July 1 of the same calendar year.” ORS 308.007(2).
D. Whether Plaintiffs’ Certification Was Untimely Based on Defendant’s Request
Defendant prepared a “written request” to Legacy dated March 4, 2019. Defendant’s
employee declared that she mailed the written request to Legacy at its correct address on that
same date. Defendant supplied no further proof of mailing. Plaintiffs maintain that they did not
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 6 receive the written request or learn of it until after they received the disqualification notice on
June 10, 2019. Plaintiffs submitted the certification on June 26, 2019, which was more than 90
days after the date of Defendant’s written request, but well within 90 days of when Plaintiffs first
received the written request.
The first question is whether Legacy was required to submit its certification within 90
days of the date of Defendant’s written request – by June 2, 2019 – even though it did not receive
the written request until after that date. The text of the statute requires the certification to be
submitted “90 days following * * * the date of the request.” The text alone is ambiguous. It
could refer to the date of the request was sent or to the date the request was received by Legacy.
The statute is silent with respect to what qualifies as adequate notice for purposes of sending the
written request. Several other special assessment statutes allow the assessor to request written
reports from taxpayers but provide more specificity with respect to the manner of the request and
the deadline to respond. In the context of open space land and riparian land special assessments,
the assessor must send the request by first class mail and the taxpayer must respond “within 90
days after receipt of the demand.” ORS 308A.327, 308A.374(1).
Plaintiffs cite Stroh v. State Acc. Ins. Fund, 261 Or 117, 119, 492 P2d 472 (1972) in
support of their contention that notice in this context is effective upon receipt. (Ptfs’ MSJ at 13.)
In Stroh, the court ruled that, “[i]n the absence of statute the deposit of a notification in the mail
is not effective as notice unless the notification is received. However, statutes commonly
provide for notification by mail and where this is the case the deposit of the notification in the
mails satisfies the requirement of notice, even though the notification is not received.” 261 Or at
119. Defendant argues that Stroh and other cases cited by Plaintiffs are inapposite because they
involved statutes with “stringent requirements on notice, specifically for the services of notices
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 7 of appeal.” (Def’s MSJ at 5.) However, courts have followed the rule in Stroh in the context of
construing a promissory note and a land sale contract, respectively. See Bartlam v. Tikka, 50 Or
App 217, 622 P2d 1133 (1981) (interpreting “give written notice” as effective upon receipt);
Hartz v. Aryomloo, 62 Or App 534, 661 P2d 573 (1983) (holding that in the absences of more
specific provisions, notice is effective upon receipt). Thus, is does not appear that the rule is
confined to the construction of statutes concerning appeal notices.
Here, ORS 308A.465 authorizes the assessor to make a “request in writing” without any
reference to notification by mail. Accordingly, the court follows the rule in Stroh and concludes
that the notice was effective upon receipt. Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond was September 8,
2019, or 90 days from receipt of Defendant’s written request. Plaintiffs’ certification was not
untimely based on the date of Defendant’s written request. The next question is whether
Plaintiffs’ certification was untimely under the general standard set forth in ORS
308A.465(4)(a); that is, “90 days following the close of the three-year period.”
E. Whether Plaintiffs’ Certification was Untimely Based on the Three-Year Period
Absent a written request from the assessor, the holder must submit a written certification
to the assessor “[e]very three years.” ORS 308A.465(2)(a). Failure to submit the written
certification “within 90 days following the close of the three-year period” will result in
disqualification from special assessment. ORS 308A.465(4)(a). Plaintiffs maintain that the
“three-year period” refers to the tax year, whereas Defendant contends that the three-year period
began to run on the date of Plaintiffs’ last certification, making December 21, 2018, the close of
the three-year period. (Ptfs’ MSJ at 10-11; Def’s MSJ at 4.)
Here, again, the statutory text is ambiguous. The term “three-year period” is not defined.
Relevant context includes the term “tax year” used for property tax purposes, including special
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 8 assessment. Special assessment is granted for a tax year; as Plaintiffs noted, their original
application accepted by Defendant stated it was for the tax year beginning July 1, 2013. The
date of any disqualification is determined by reference to the July 1 start of the tax year. See
ORS 308A.456(5). Upon disqualification, back taxes are calculated based on tax years. See
ORS 308A.703(3)(c). Those contextual clues indicate that the three-year period likely refers to
three tax years rather than to a rolling three-year period depending on the date that the assessor
receives the taxpayer’s certification. Plaintiffs correctly point out the administrative difficulties
for both the taxpayer and the assessor associated with tracking a rolling three-year deadline. (See
Ptfs’ MSJ at 11.) It is unlikely that the legislature intended such a meaning.
Having determined that the “three-year period” refers to three tax years, the court agrees
with Plaintiffs that their certification submitted June 26, 2019, was timely. Plaintiffs’ initial
three-year period began with the 2013-14 tax year on July 1, 2013, and ended June 30, 2016. At
Defendant’s request, Plaintiffs submitted a certification on December 21, 2015. That date fell
during the 2015-16 tax year and satisfied the filing requirement for the first three-year period.
The second three-year period began July 1, 2016, and ended June 30, 2019. Plaintiffs’
certification submitted June 26, 2019, was timely for that period. Because Plaintiffs’
certification was timely under either standard the court concludes that the subject property
should not have been disqualified from special assessment. 6
III. CONCLUSION
Upon careful consideration, the court concludes that Plaintiffs’ certification submitted to
Defendant on July 26, 2019, was timely and the subject property should not have been
6 Under ORS 308A.465(4)(a), Plaintiffs must provide certification the earlier of 90 days from the written request, or the close of the three-year period.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 9 disqualified from conservation easement special assessment for the 2019-20 tax year. 7 Now,
therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and
Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted.
Dated this day of May 2020.
ALLISON R. BOOMER MAGISTRATE
This is a dispositive order pursuant to Tax Court Rule – Magistrate Division 16 C(1). The court will issue a decision after waiting 14 days to determine whether there is a dispute about costs and disbursements. Any claim of error in regard to this order should be raised in an appeal of the Magistrate’s decision when all issues have been resolved. See TCR-MD 19.
This document was signed by Magistrate Allison R. Boomer and entered on May 27, 2020.
7 Having concluded that Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted based on the timeliness of Plaintiffs’ certification, the court need not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ due process challenge.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190300N 10