IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Small Claims
Property Tax
SHEILA MURTY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC-MD 050336A
DECISION and JUDGMENT
Plaintiff appealed the assessment of her home, identified as Account R243576, for the
2004-05 tax year. She appeared and made her arguments. Defendant participated through Kurt
Hamm, of its staff.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff purchased her home, located at 6204 N. Williams Ave., Portland, Oregon, in
January 2004 for $269,000. Its assessed value for the 2003-04 tax year was $93,670. For the
2004-05 tax year, the assessed value increased to $121,010.
Plaintiff reasoned that the increase was inappropriate because her home had not received
a kitchen remodel, and it featured an older roof and paint. For its part, Defendant testified that
the explanation for the increase in value was not due to those features. Instead, it was caused
by the increase in living space due to the changes to the house’s basement and the adding of a
bath-and-a-half.
As Plaintiff’s property taxes were paid by her mortgage company, she did not realize the
consequences of her increased assessment until after the time for filing an appeal with the board
of property tax appeals had lapsed. Plaintiff filed her appeal with this court on March 29, 2005.
///
DECISION and JUDGMENT TC-MD 050336A
1
II. ANALYSIS
The condition of Plaintiff’s kitchen cannot support any increase to her home’s assessed
value. However, it is understandable that her assessed value should rise upon Defendant’s
recognition that the living space of the home had increased and that more baths had been added.
Defendant’s increase in assessed value was reasonable under those circumstances.
Moreover, there is also nothing, at this point, the court can do. Although the court may
excuse a failure to make a timely appeal to the board of property tax appeals under some
circumstances, a property owner’s lapse in keeping himself or herself informed of their
property’s assessment is not such an instance. ORS 305.288(3).1 This is also not an instance
where the real market value of the property is presented as being in error. ORS 305.288(1).
III. CONCLUSION
Now, therefore,
IT IS ADJUDGED that this appeal must be denied.
Dated this _____ day of October 2005.
_____________________________________
SCOT A. SIDERAS
MAGISTRATE
This document is final and may not be appealed. ORS 305.514.
This document was signed by Magistrate Scot A. Sideras on October 28, 2005 .
The Court filed this document on October 28, 2005.
1
All references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2003.
DECISION and JUDGMENT TC-MD 050336A
2
