Ochsner v. Dept. of Rev.

158 March 5, 2013 No. 22
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
John A. OCHSNER IV,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Defendant.
(TC 5155)
Plaintiff appealed from a Magistrate Division decision in a case, brought by
a corporation, which denied property tax exemption for real property in Yamhill
County. Defendant (the department) moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on
the grounds that Plaintiff, an individual, was not a party to the Magistrate
Division case and was neither aggrieved by nor affected by the magistrate’s
decision. Defendant also argued that in addition, Plaintiff was not a corpora-
tion eligible for property tax exemption, nor was he liable for payment of tax on
the subject property and therefore he had no standing to take an appeal to the
Regular Division. Granting the department’s motion, the court ruled that if the
Magistrate Division corporate plaintiff was obligated to pay tax imposed on the
property, (a fact about which the record and the decision of the magistrate was
silent) Plaintiff would have no statutory right of appeal under ORS 305.275 or
any other statute. Alternately, if Plaintiff was the property owner obligated to
pay the tax imposed on the property, he would have been the proper party plain-
tiff in the Magistrate Division and as such, the Magistrate Division would not
have had jurisdiction in the matter. In either event, Plaintiff had no standing and
the complaint was dismissed.
Submitted on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
John A. Ochsner IV, Plaintiff, filed a response pro se.
Melisse S. Cunningham, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, Salem, filed the motion for
Defendant (the department).
Decision for Defendant rendered March 5, 2013.
HENRY C. BREITHAUPT, Judge.
This matter is before the court on the Motion
to Dismiss of Defendant Department of Revenue (the
department) and the Motion for Summary Judgment and
Alternative Motion of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff states here and stated in the Magistrate
Division proceeding that he owns certain real property that
Cite as 21 OTR 158 (2013) 159
is leased to Catland, a not-for-profit corporation. Catland
claimed an exemption from property tax. The county assessor
for Yamhill County denied that exemption request. Catland
then appealed to the Magistrate Division. The magistrate
hearing the case ruled in favor of the county assessor.
Plaintiff then filed this appeal with the Regular
Division in his own name. The department, the named
defendant in the Regular Division, has moved to dismiss
the complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff had and has
no right to appeal a decision of a magistrate in a proceed-
ing in which he was not a party. Plaintiff has responded
and separately filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and
Alternative Motion to which the department objects.
This case could only have been brought to the Magi-
strate Division under the provisions of ORS 305.275(1)(a)(C)
providing for appeal from a denial of exemption request
and then only if, as provided in ORS 305.275(1)(b), Catland
was, under its lease of the property, obligated to pay the tax
imposed on the property.1
If Catland was obligated to pay the tax imposed
on the property, it was the proper party plaintiff in the
Magistrate Division and, as such was the party to take
any appeal from a decision of the magistrate under ORS
305.501(5)(a) and would have standing to appeal under
ORS 305.570(1)(b). In those circumstances Plaintiff here
would have no statutory right of appeal.
Alternatively, if Catland was not obligated to pay
tax imposed on the property, a fact about which the record
and the decision of the magistrate is silent, it would have
had no statutory right of appeal under ORS 305.275 or any
other statute. In that event, the Magistrate Division was
without jurisdiction and the decision of the magistrate was
void and there was nothing from which an appeal to the
Regular Division could be taken.2
1
All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2011. In his
papers Plaintiff mistakenly identifies himself as a taxpayer. Taxes on real prop-
erty in Oregon are in rem obligations as to which there is, generally, no personal
liability. See Douglas County v. Smith, 18 OTR 450 (2006).
2
The court recognizes that this alternative was not an issue raised by either
party in this division or in the Magistrate Division. The court must, however,
160 Ochsner v. Dept. of Rev.
As can be seen from the foregoing analysis, in all
events Plaintiff in this matter has no basis on which to pro-
ceed. The Motion to Dismiss of the department is granted.
The motions of Plaintiff are denied as moot. Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss is granted; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
motions are denied as moot.
raise and resolve the issue of jurisdiction, whenever it appears. In this instance
the court raises the issue as one of two possible factual circumstances and, as will
be seen, as a way of demonstrating that in no event may the plaintiff shown on
the pleadings under consideration proceed in this division.