Eckard v. Douglas County Assessor

DECISION TC-MD 250424N 1
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
KELLY ECKARD, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, TC-MD 250424N
v.
DOUGLAS COUNTY ASSESSOR,
DECISION	Defendant.
Plaintiff appealed Defendant’s disqualification from forestland special assessment of 4.01
acres of property identified as accounts R41101 and R147107 (subject property) for the 2025-26
tax year. (Compl at 2.) Plaintiff does not dispute the disqualification, only the imposition of
additional tax calculated for the preceding five years. (Id. at 1, 3.) Defendant filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment (Motion) on October 28, 2025. Plaintiff agreed to file a response to the
Motion by December 8, 2025, but did not do so. (Or Set Sched at 1.) As of the date of this
Decision, the court has received no response from Plaintiff.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff has owned and lived on the subject property for over 20 years. (Compl at 3.)
The prior owner of the subject property applied for and received forestland special assessment.
(Id.; see also Or Set Sched at 1 (parties agree prior owner rather than Plaintiff applied for special
assessment).) Plaintiff received property tax statements for the subject property each year and
paid the tax due. (Or Set Sched at 1.) The tax statements indicated a potential additional tax
liability. (O’Connor Aff in Support of Def’s Mot at 3, Ex C.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff was
unaware of the special assessment. (Or Set Sched at 1.)
/ / /

DECISION TC-MD 250424N 2
In December 2025, Defendant’s Farm-Forest appraiser Judy O’Connor discovered that
the subject property no longer qualified as forestland and determined that it should be
disqualified from special assessment. (O’Connor Aff at 1.) O’Connor mailed the
disqualification notice to Plaintiff in April 2025. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff called Defendant in May
2025 and spoke to O’Connor. (Id.) In that call, Plaintiff declined to plant trees to requalify the
subject property or to roll the subject property over to another special assessment. (Id.)
Plaintiff then appealed the disqualification to this court, objecting to the additional tax
imposed for disqualification because he “did not sign up” for the special assessment and never
knew the subject property received it. (Compl at 3; Or Set Sched at 1.)
II. ANALYSIS
The issue before the court is whether Defendant correctly imposed additional tax on the
subject property due to its disqualification from forestland special assessment given Plaintiff did
not personally apply for—and was unaware the subject property received—special assessment.
The court will grant summary judgment when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tax Court Rule – Magistrate
Division (TCR-MD) 13 B, applying Tax Court Rule (TCR) 47 C. When ruling on a motion for
summary judgment, the court views facts in a manner most favorable to the adverse party, which
is Plaintiff in this case. TCR 47 C.
Under ORS 321.359(1), designated forestland maintains the designation until the assessor
removes the forestland designation for one of the reasons stated in statute, including discovery
by the assessor that the land is no longer forestland.1 When land is disqualified from special
assessment, an additional tax is added equal to the difference between taxes assessed and taxes
1 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2023.

DECISION TC-MD 250424N 3
that would otherwise have been assessed. ORS 308A.703(2). The number of years for which
the additional tax is calculated depends on the type of special assessment. ORS 308A.703(2).
Disqualified Western Oregon forestland is taxed for the lesser of the number of consecutive
years the land had qualified for the special assessment or for five years. ORS 308A.703(3)(d).
Here, Defendant disqualified the subject property, based on discovery that it no longer qualified
as forestland, and imposed five years of additional tax. That is consistent with Defendant’s
statutory obligations.
Plaintiff argues that the additional tax should not be imposed because he was not aware
of the special assessment nor did he apply for it. ORS 321.362 requires the tax roll to include a
notation for potential additional tax liability on designated forestland, and the subject property
tax statements included such a notation. Plaintiff, therefore, received notice of the potential
additional tax liability even if he did not appreciate the meaning of the notice. The additional tax
is imposed on the land rather than the applicant. See, e.g., Sarra v. Yamhill County Assessor,
TC-MD 091431B, 2010 WL 2565135 (Or Tax M Div, Jun 28, 2010) (new owners of property
were responsible for additional tax following disqualification where the tax roll included the
required notation of additional tax). Plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing.
III. CONCLUSION
Upon careful consideration, the court concludes that Defendant properly imposed an
additional tax following disqualification of the subject property from forestland special
assessment. The potential additional tax was a matter of public record, so it is immaterial that
Plaintiff did not personally apply for special assessment or understand that the subject property
had received special assessment. Now, therefore,
/ / /

DECISION TC-MD 250424N 4
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is granted and Plaintiff’s appeal is denied.
ALLISON R. BOOMER
PRESIDING MAGISTRATE
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a complaint in the Regular Division of
the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563;
or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 State Street, Salem, OR.
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 Presiding Magistrate Allison R. Boomer and
entered on February 6, 2026.