Olson v. Lane County Assessor

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 260270G 	1 of 6
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
ERNEST OLSON, JR, 	)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, 	TC-MD 260270G
v.
LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR,
DECISION OF DISMISSAL	Defendant.
This matter came before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, alleging Plaintiff
has no right to relief in this court because he did not first petition the property value appeals
board (PVAB). The subject property is identified as Account 1027455, and the tax year at issue
is 2025-26.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the purpose of deciding Defendant’s motion, the court accepts the facts as presented
by Plaintiff in the Complaint and in his response to Defendant’s motion.
Plaintiff purchased the subject from the federal government at an auction in
December 2024. (Compl at 1; Ptf’s Resp at 1, 3.) At that time, the subject “was in distressed
condition and required substantial cleanup, rehabilitation, utility restoration, and preparation
before it could be occupied and utilized.” (Ptf’s Resp at 1.) In May 2025, Plaintiff “reactivated”
the subject “as a community-serving public facility, anchored by a joint venture between
[Plaintiff] and nonprofit-aligned entities” that included an organization called CO2 Trust. (Ptf’s
Resp at 10.) The leadership of CO2 Trust appears to have been in the hands of one Misty Burris
(Burris), who is identified by her email address and signature line as that organization’s president
and CEO. (Id. at 10–11.)

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 260270G 	2 of 6
On October 18, 2025, after receiving the subject’s 2025-26 tax statement, either Plaintiff
or Burris visited Defendant’s office to discuss concerns about the assessment. (Ptf’s Resp at 14.)
At that meeting, Defendant’s appraiser evidently stated he would “email the information.” (Id.)
Burris later renewed her request for information, and Defendant sent her a short email on
December 3, 2025, stating: “Hi Misty, Hope this one reaches you.” (Ptf’s Resp at 9.) That email
contained attachments entitled “How to Appeal Your Property Value”; “measure 50
explanation”; and “PVAB Real Property Petition & Instructions.” (Id.)
On January 2, 2026, Burris emailed Defendant a letter from Plaintiff with a subject line
reading “Public Use & Nonprofit Alignment – Request for Reassessment & Exemption
Consideration.” (Ptf’s Resp at 10–11.) In that letter, Plaintiff asked Defendant to reclassify the
subject, to reassess its maximum assessed value and real market value, and to waive or adjust
back taxes. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff’s letter listed additional documents “available upon request[.]”
(Id.) One of those documents was identified thus: “Petition to PVAB (drafted but pending your
guidance).” (Id.)
On April 7, 2026, Burris sent an email to Defendant inquiring about “the status of the
reevaluation first and the exemption second.” (Ptf’s Resp at 12.) The reply from Defendant’s
representative came on April 8, 2026, stating: “I will inquire about your account at my first
opportunity and will get back to you with any information.” (Id.)
On April 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this court, appealing the subject
property’s 2025-26 real market value. (Compl at 1.) The parties agree that Plaintiff had not
previously petitioned PVAB for relief. (Def’s Mot Dismiss at 1; Ptf’s Resp at 1.)
/ / /
/ / /

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 260270G 	3 of 6
II. ANALYSIS
At issue is whether Plaintiff has a right of appeal to this court under ORS 305.275 or
ORS 305.288.
A. 	ORS 305.275
The general right of appeal to this court is found in ORS 305.275 and is open to all who
are aggrieved and affected by the actions of variously named taxing authorities. ORS
305.275(1).1 Property valuation appeals receive special treatment within that statute.
ORS 305.275(3) states:
“If a taxpayer may appeal to the property value appeals board under
ORS 309.100, then no appeal may be allowed under this section. The appeal
under this section is from an order of the board as a result of the appeal filed
under ORS 309.100 or from an order of the board that certain corrections,
additions to or changes in the roll be made.”
ORS 309.100 grants a right to petition a county’s PVAB to reduce the tax roll value of property
(excluding certain industrial properties). Thus, taxpayers seeking a reduction in the value of
residential or commercial property “may not be allowed to appeal under [ORS 305.275]” unless
they have first petitioned their county PVAB and received an order from that board. ORS
305.275(3); Zervis v. Dept. of Rev., 20 OTR 79, 82 n 4 (2010) (“Under ORS 305.275(3), an
appeal under ORS 305.275 is not permitted if the taxpayer may begin the appeal to BOPTA
[now PVAB] under ORS 309.100.”)
Because Plaintiff had a right to petition PVAB under ORS 309.100 and did not pursue it,
he has no right of appeal under ORS 305.275. See ORS 305.275(3).
/ / /
/ / /
1 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2023 edition.

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 260270G 	4 of 6
B. 	ORS 305.288(3)
Aggrieved persons who have lost the right of appeal under ORS 305.275 may in some
cases still obtain relief from this court if they had “good and sufficient cause” for not pursuing
the statutory right of appeal. ORS 305.288(3). Good and sufficient cause is defined as an
“extraordinary circumstance” beyond the taxpayer’s control that caused the taxpayer to fail to
pursue a timely appeal. ORS 305.288(5)(b)(A). It “[d]oes not include inadvertence, oversight,
lack of knowledge, hardship or reliance on misleading information provided by any person
except an authorized tax official providing the relevant misleading information.”
ORS 305.288(5)(b)(B).
To obtain relief under ORS 305.288(3), a plaintiff must show that an extraordinary
circumstance occurred and that the circumstance caused the failure to appeal. Karamanos
Holdings Inc., v. Multnomah County Assessor, 21 OTR 198, 202 (2013) (holding change in
statute governing appeal process not extraordinary circumstance). Extraordinary circumstances
may include “death or serious illness; unavoidable and unforeseen absence; lapses in the
assessor’s performance of his or her duties; or fire, disaster, or other casualty.” Kirtz v.
Washington County Assessor, TC-MD 021123A, 2002 WL 32107259 at *2 (Or Tax M Div,
Dec 27, 2002) (holding ignorance of reporting obligation not good and sufficient cause). An
organization’s busy seasonal schedule is not an extraordinary circumstance. See Crossridge
Church v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, TC-MD 190336N, 2020 WL 4251980 at *5 (Or Tax
M Div July 23, 2020) (holding church’s busy holiday season not good and sufficient cause under
exemption statute’s similar standard).
Causation is typically shown through the coincidence of an extraordinary circumstance
and a statutory deadline. Karamanos Holdings, 21 OTR at 202 n 2. A circumstance occurring

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 260270G 	5 of 6
after the deadline has passed cannot be good and sufficient cause. See, e.g., Olson v. Washington
County Assessor, TC-MD 150119D, 2015 WL 3855592, at *3 (Or Tax M Div, June 22, 2015)
(holding that surgery one month after filing deadline could not have caused taxpayer to miss
deadline).
In the present case, Plaintiff admits he did not appeat to PVAB but argues this appeal
should proceed because he was “actively pursuing review of the property’s assessment through
communications with [Defendant]” while rehabilitating the subject. (Ptf’s Resp at 1–2.)
Although Plaintiff does not cite a statute, the court reviews the applicability of ORS 305.288(3).
For communications with Defendant to cause Plaintiff to miss the PVAB deadline, they
would have to have occurred on or before December 31, 2025. See ORS 309.100(2); Olson,
2015 WL 3855592. While Plaintiff provided multiple emails from January 2026 and later, the
only email during the relevant period was sent by Defendant to Burris on December 3, 2025.
That email appears to have provided instructions and forms for filing a PVAB petition. Far from
causing Plaintiff to miss the PVAB deadline, Defendant appears to have provided material
assistance to Plaintiff’s business associate.
Plaintiff’s acquisition and rehabilitation of the subject was undoubtedly a large
undertaking requiring much time and attention. Nevertheless, being busy is not an extraordinary
circumstance in the pertinent sense here. See Crossridge Church, 2020 WL 4251980.
Plaintiff has not shown good and sufficient cause for failing to petition PVAB, either due
to Defendant’s actions or to the shuffle of a major rehabilitation.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 260270G 	6 of 6
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has no right of appeal under ORS 305.275 because he did not first petition
PVAB, and he has no right of appeal under ORS 305.288(3) because he lacks good and sufficient
cause for not petitioning PVAB. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal be dismissed.
POUL F. LUNDGREN
MAGISTRATE
To appeal this Decision, file a complaint in the Regular Division of the Oregon
Tax Court. Appeals are accepted by electronic filing; by mail at 1163 State
Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563; and by hand delivery to 1241 State Street, Salem,
OR, Floor 4R.
Your complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of this Decision
or this Decision cannot be changed. TCR-MD 19 B.
This document was signed by Magistrate Poul F. Lundgren and entered on
October 16, 2026.