Hull v. Columbia County Assessor (250445N)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION TC-MD 250445N 1
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
JAMES HULL, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, TC-MD 250445N
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY ASSESSOR,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL INSPECTION	Defendant.
This matter came before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel, requesting a site
inspection of the subject property, which Plaintiff opposes. The parties filed written briefs in
accordance with a schedule set during the case management conference held July 15, 2025.1
A. Background and Briefing on Motion to Compel
Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s disqualification of 2.22 acres from forestland special
assessment. (Ptf’s Compl at 3.) Defendant disqualified the property because it “no longer meets
stocking and species requirements.” (Id.) Plaintiff disagrees, alleging that “there has been no
change to use of the land. Trees harvested are replaced with native species.” (Id. at 1.)
Defendant asks for an order compelling Plaintiff to allow Defendant or its staff “full
unobstructed access to the [subject property], including but not limited to walking the grounds of
the property to verify the stocking of trees for forest deferral.” (Def’s Mot to Compel at 1.)
Defendant made a written request for inspection to Plaintiff on June 24, 2025, and called
Plaintiff on July 1, 2025, and left a voicemail concerning the site inspection. (Id.) Defendant
1 The parties’ briefs address an attempted inspection by Defendant’s staff shortly before Defendant
disqualified the subject property from forestland special assessment. Plaintiff characterized the attempted inspection
as trespassing and Defendant disputed that characterization. The character of that attempted inspection is outside the
scope of the pending discovery motion and the court declines to address it, other than noting it was unsuccessful.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION TC-MD 250445N 2
maintains the inspection is “essential to establish whether the stocking of trees has been
completed and meets statute for continued deferral * * *.” (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s Motion as “overly burdensome and unreasonably invasive
of [his] privacy rights, including protections analogous to those under the Fourth Amendment of
the United States Constitution.” (Ptf’s Resp at 1.) Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s request for
“full access” as “vague and overly broad, failing to specify the scope, duration, or specific areas
to be inspected[.]” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff maintains the inspection would impose a significant
burden by disrupting his “personal use, occupancy, farming and livestock activities on the
property.” (Id.) In reply, Defendant reiterates that “a site inspection is necessary to validate that
[the subject] property would qualify for deferral under both Farm statutes and Forest Land
statutes.” (Def’s Reply at 3.)
B. Analysis
Discovery is permitted in the Magistrate Division of the court, and a party may request
that the court compel a site inspection if the party has been unable to obtain a site inspection
through a written request to the other party. See Tax Court Rule-Magistrate Division (TCR-MD)
9 B(2). Discovery, including a site inspection, is part of the “adversarial process, in which each
party gathers its facts about the value of the property and presents them to the court in the
manner the party considers most persuasive.” Salisbury v. Dept. of Rev., 24 OTR 497, 511
(2021). By inspecting the subject property, the county can gather evidence to present to the
court. Id. at 511-512. When a taxpayer denies the county an opportunity to inspect the subject
property, that forecloses the court’s ability to make a correct determination in its de novo review.
ORS 305.425.2 Here, the issue is whether the subject property qualifies for forestland special
2 All references to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2023 edition unless otherwise noted.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION TC-MD 250445N 3
assessment, including whether stocking and species requirements are satisfied. An inspection of
the subject property is likely to produce evidence relevant to that issue.
Plaintiff argues that an inspection would violate his right to privacy under the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and similar provisions. That argument has been
rejected by the Oregon Supreme Court. Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 328 Or 552, 562-63, 983 P2d
527 (1999) (upholding inspection of taxpayer’s home in property tax appeal).
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s request for “full unobstructed access” to the subject
property is overly broad. Defendant did not address that argument in its reply. However, in its
Motion, Defendant explained the purpose of the inspection: to walk the grounds of the property
to verify the stocking of trees for forest deferral. That request is reasonable based on the issue on
appeal; namely, whether the subject property qualifies for forestland special assessment. Upon
consideration, the court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel. Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted. The parties shall confer
to schedule a date within the next 30 days for Defendant to inspect the subject property land
disqualified from forestland special assessment. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order
may result in dismissal of the appeal.
ALLISON R. BOOMER
PRESIDING MAGISTRATE
This interim order may not be appealed. Any claim of error in regard to this
order should be raised in an appeal of the Magistrate’s final written decision
when all issues have been resolved. ORS 305.501.
This document was signed by Magistrate Allison R. Boomer and entered on
October 22, 2025.