Mednansky v. Dept. of Rev.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT TC 5465 Page 1 of 3
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
Property Tax
DAVID JOHN MEDNANSKY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC 5465
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default, filed June
3, 2024, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, filed June 10, 2024. The court’s records
and a declaration of Defendant’s counsel show the following relevant facts:
(1) On or about May 1, 2024, the court received the complaint in this matter, in a United
States Mail package postmarked April 29, 2024.
(2) On May 1, 2024, the court transmitted a copy of the complaint to Defendant under
cover of a transmittal letter of the same date; the court mailed a copy of the
transmittal letter to Plaintiff.
(3) On May 14, 2024, Defendant filed an answer, along with a certificate of service
stating that Defendant’s counsel had directed a copy to be served on Plaintiff by U.S.
Mail that same day (May 14, 2024).
(4) On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Entry of Default,” alleging that
“Defendant had until the 31st of May to answer but did not.”
(5) On June 5, 2024, Defendant filed its answer a second time, along with a certificate of
service certifying that Defendant’s counsel had directed a copy to be served on
Plaintiff by U.S. Mail that same day (June 5, 2024).
(6) On June 6, 2024, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s June 3 motion. The
response includes a declaration in which Defendant’s counsel states that he realized
upon reading the June 3 motion that he inadvertently had failed to serve Plaintiff on

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT TC 5465 Page 2 of 3
May 14. Defendant’s counsel further declares that he mailed a copy of the answer to
Plaintiff on June 5, 2024.
(7) On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Default Judgment.”
Plaintiff has miscalculated the due date for Defendant’s answer; the court’s records show
that Defendant both filed and served its answer within the time allowed for filing.
Tax Court Rule (TCR) 7 A(1) defines the date of the court’s service of the complaint on
Defendant as the third day after the date on the court’s transmittal letter. The transmittal letter is
dated May 1, 2024; the third day thereafter was May 4, 2024. However, May 4 was a Saturday;
under TCR 10 A(1), neither Saturday, May 4, nor Sunday, May 5, may be counted in computing
the date of service. Therefore, Defendant was served on Monday, May 6, 2024.
Under TCR 7 C(2)(b) Defendant was required to “appear and defend within 30 days from
the date of service.” The 30th day after May 6 was June 5, 2024. However, three days must be
added under TCR 10 B, which provides: “Except for service of summons or the initial filing of
an appeal, whenever a party has the right to or is required to do some act within a prescribed
period after the service of a notice or other document upon that party and the notice or document
is served by mail, electronic filing system, e-mail, or facsimile communication, three days will
be added to the prescribed period.” Three days after June 5 was June 8, a Saturday. Under TCR
10 A(1), neither Saturday, June 8, nor Sunday, June 9, may be counted. The result is an
extended deadline of Monday, June 10, 2024.
Accordingly, the answer was required to be filed on or before today, June 10, 2024. It
was, and the court has no reason to doubt that Defendant served a copy on Plaintiff on June 5,
2024, as shown on the certificate of service attached to the re-filed answer and in the declaration
of Defendant’s counsel. There is no basis for Plaintiff’s motions because Defendant has not

"failed 	to 	appear" 	within 	the 	prescribed 	time. 	TCR 	69 	A(1). 	Plaintiff s 	Motion 	for 	Entry 	of
Default 	and 	Motion 	for 	Default 	Judgment 	are 	denied.
Defendant's 	answer 	states 	in 	part: 	"Defendant 	has 	notified 	Curry 	County 	of its 	intent 	to
tender 	the 	defense 	of the 	assessment 	to 	Curry 	County 	and 	has 	asked 	Curry 	County 	to 	intervene
and 	defend 	the 	assessment." 	To 	date, 	no 	motion 	to 	intervene 	has 	been 	filed. 	If no 	such 	motion 	is
filed 	on 	or 	before 	June 	20, 	2024, 	the 	court 	will 	schedule 	an 	initial 	case 	management 	conference
solely 	including 	Plaintiff and 	Defendant, 	for 	the 	purpose 	of setting 	a 	date 	for 	trial 	or 	other
proceedings.
After 	reviewing 	the 	motions 	and 	response 	and 	being 	fully 	advised 	of the 	premises, 	the
court 	finds 	that 	Plaintiff's 	motions 	should 	be 	denied. 	Now, 	therefore,
1T 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff's 	Motion 	for 	Entry 	of Default 	is 	denied.
1T 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff's 	Motion 	for 	Default 	Judgment 	is 	denied.
Dated 	this 	10th 	day 	of June, 	2024.
6/10/2024 2:34:51 	PM
(7
Judge 	Robert T. 	Manlcke
ORDER 	DENYING 	PLAINTIFF'S 	MOTION
FOR 	ENTRY 	OF 	DEFAULT 	AND 	MOTION
FOR 	DEFAULT 	JUDGMENT 	TC 	5465
Page 	3 	of 3