Mednansky v. Dept. of Rev.

Opinion

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION Property Tax

DAVID JOHN MEDNANSKY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) TC 5465 v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) State of Oregon, ) ) Defendant, ) ) and ) ) CURRY COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS ) TO VACATE AND FOR IMPOSITION Defendant-Intervenor. ) OF SANCTIONS

This matter comes before the court on two motions filed by Plaintiff that follow from the

court’s July 2, 2024, Order Granting Curry County Assessor’s Motion to Intervene in this matter

(order). Defendant responded to each motion, and the court heard oral argument as part of a case

management conference on July 22, 2024.

On June 17, 2024, Defendant-Intervenor (the county) filed a Motion to Intervene in this

property tax case as well as its Answer (answer). To each document, the county attached a

certificate of service showing service on Plaintiff and listing the house number of Plaintiff’s

address as 27485 Eighty Acres Road, although the correct house number is 27486. The county

concedes its error. On July 2, 2024, after the period to object to the Motion to Intervene had

passed without response, the court issued its order allowing intervention. A few minutes later,

Plaintiff informed court staff by email that he had read the order but had never received copies of

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO VACATE AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS TC 5465 Page 1 of 3 the Motion to Intervene or of the answer. Court staff transmitted copies to Plaintiff by email a

few minutes after that.

On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions against counsel for the county

(motion for sanctions). On July 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Order Granting Curry

County’s Motion to Intervene (motion to vacate). In both motions, Plaintiff asserted that the

county’s error deprived him of the ability to respond before the court allowed intervention.

(Ptf’s Mot to Vacate at 2 (Plaintiff “could not file a response to oppose.”); (Ptf’s Motion for

Sanctions at 2 (“Plaintiff has been deprived of the ability to reply to both motion to intervene and

the answer.”).)

In response to the motion to vacate, Defendant argues, among other things, that there is

no evidence that the county’s error “affect[s] the substantial rights” of Plaintiff, and that the court

is thus required to deny the motion. Tax Court Rule (TCR) 12 B (“The court will, in every stage

of an action, disregard any error, defect, or omission in the pleadings or proceedings which does

not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party.”) (emphasis added). (Def’s Response to

Motion to Vacate at 2.)

The court agrees with Defendant. Plaintiff asks the court to undo its order allowing

intervention, but his motion offers no substantive reason why the county should not be allowed

to intervene. It is true that the county’s error in service prevented Plaintiff from presenting

substantive arguments before the court allowed intervention. However, Plaintiff promptly

asserted a right to be heard by moving to vacate the court’s order. When Defendant argued that

the order did not affect Plaintiff’s substantial rights, Plaintiff replied by simply reiterating his due

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO VACATE AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS TC 5465 Page 2 of 3 process argument. (Ptf's Reply at 2.) Likewise, at oral argument Plaintiff added no substantive

objections to intervention.

The court finds no evidence that the county's error affected Plaintiff's substantial rights;

accordingly, the court will deny Plaintiffs motion to vacate pursuant to TCR 12 B.

The same findings and reasoning apply to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, except that this

motion points out that the county's error deprived him not only of the ability to timely oppose

intervention, but also of the ability to timely file any reply to the county's answer. (Ptfs Motion

for Sanctions at 2.) See TCR 13 B. The possibility of a reply is not squarely covered by

Plaintiff' s motion to vacate. Therefore, the court will allow Plaintiff 10 days from entry of this

order to file any reply. Now, therefore,

1T IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate is denied;

1T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is denied; and

1T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is allowed ten days to file any reply to

Defendant-Intervenor's Answer.

Dated this 23rd day of July, 2024.

7/23/2024 12:09:32 PM

(7 Judge Robert T. Manlcke

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO VACATE AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS TC 5465 Page 3 of 3