Auskaps v. Deschutes Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE MAGISTRATE DIVISION OF THE OREGON TAX COURT Small Claims Property Tax ANDREJS AUSKAPS, Plaintiff, v. DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 000346C DECISION AND JUDGMENT Plaintiff has appealed the real market value (RMV) of certain real property identified in the Deschutes County Assessor s records as Account No. R 1-001 171230CB-00414 (192041) for the 1999-00 tax year. A trial was held on July 19, 2000. Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf. Defendant appeared through Ms. Theresa Maul, an appraiser with the Deschutes County Assessor s Office. STATEMENT OF FACTS The subject property is an unimproved lot located in the Awbrey Highlands subdivision in Bend, Oregon, adjacent to Central Oregon Community College. Plaintiff purchased the property in June 1999 for $67,000. The RMV on the tax rolls is $69,010, based on a three percent trend for 1998. Plaintiff requests a reduction to $59,295, based on the 11.5 percent drop in the asking price of the lot immediately next to his (from $61,000 to $54,000) in October 1999. That lot then sold in two weeks. The subdivision plat was filed in December 1996. There are 25 lots in the subdivision and they all sold by December 1999. There were eight sales in 1997, apparently split between nicer view lots higher on the hill, all selling for $75,000, and lesser DECISION AND JUDGMENT 1 lots with topography problems (steep slope) which sold at or below $53,000. In 1998 there were five sales1, three of which involved sloped lots selling for $49,000 to $52,000. The better view properties (lots 4 & 22) sold for $73,000 and $68,500, respectively. The balance of the lots sold in 1999, including the subject (lot 7) and the three properties immediately adjacent to the west (lots 8-10). These four lots are at the end of the cul-desac. They are tree covered and below the view properties to the east (lots 1, 2 & 25). They do not enjoy a view of Mt. Bachelor, as do some of the others. All of these non-view lots, including the subject, overlook the college, with lots 9 and 10 abutting the dorm parking lot. COURT'S ANALYSIS The issue is market value, which is the amount in cash that could reasonably be expected to be paid by an informed buyer to an informed seller, each acting without compulsion in an arm's length transaction occurring as of the assessment date for the tax year. ORS 308.205(1) The assessment date for tax year 1999-00 was January 1, 1999. ORS 308.210(1). Plaintiff paid $67,000 for the property in June 1999. The county says the annual trend from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999, was three percent. Applying the trend for the six month period from the assessment date to the purchase date suggests a value of $66,000 (rounded).2 This suggests that the roll value is fairly reflective of market and certainly well within a comfortable range of tolerance. /// Plaintiff insists that his lot and those adjacent to the west, all of which sold in 1 2 One of these sloped lot sales involved 2 lots and sold for a total of $104,500. $67,000 x .985 = $65,995. DECISION AND JUDGMENT 2 1999, have a lesser value than the lots immediately to the east, which sold two years earlier for $8,000 more. The evidence tends to support that argument. Plaintiff contends he paid too much for his lot, as evidenced by the sale prices of two adjoining lots in October (lots 8 & 9) for $54,000 and $50,350. Also, lot 10 sold in April 1999 for $53,000. These sales (including the subject) were among the last to occur. Plaintiff believes the market was declining and that his value should be lowered 11.5 percent because of the reduction in the asking price of lot 8, which is immediately adjacent to him. Plaintiff testified that lot 8, which sold in October 1999, only sold after the asking price was dropped $7,000 (11.5 %). A reduction in the asking price does not necessarily mean the market declined. It could just as easily be that the original asking price was too high. The more persuasive argument is that these adjoining lots selling in 1999 demonstrate that the subject was sold for more than it was worth. However, that assumes plaintiff s lot is truly comparable to these lots. Plaintiff s lot lies in between these properties, selling for prices under $60,000, and those to the east selling for $75,000. This suggests plaintiff s lot shares some attributes of each group and correctly sold for a price somewhere in the middle. There are a variety of possible explanations for the lower sale prices of the lots next to plaintiff (lots 8, 9 and 10). Among other things, two of them are abutting the college campus and student parking lot. There is a path between two of these lots used by the students. To grant the requested relief the court would essentially have to discount the purchase price or be persuaded that the market declined significantly. The evidence does not support that request. CONCLUSION DECISION AND JUDGMENT 3 After thoughtfully reviewing the evidence the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to substantiate his case for a reduction in the RMV. Accordingly, the roll value is sustained and the requested relief denied. Now, therefore; IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff s appeal is denied. The RMV of Deschutes County Assessor s Account No. R 1-001 171230-CB00414 (192041), for the 1999-00 tax year, was $69,010. Dated this _____ day of July, 2000. ______________________________________ DAN ROBINSON MAGISTRATE THIS DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE DAN ROBINSON ON JULY 25, 2000. THE COURT FILED THIS DOCUMENT ON JULY 25, 2000. DECISION AND JUDGMENT 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
