Irvjoy 3rd Generation Corp. v. Multnomah County Assessor

ORDER TC-MD 260508R 1
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
IRVJOY 3RD GENERATION CORP., )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, TC-MD 260508R
v.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR,
ORDER	Defendant.
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Motion), filed June 10,
2026. Defendant moves to dismiss this appeal because Plaintiff identified an incorrect property
tax account number in the Complaint. The account number listed in the original Complaint
corresponds to property not owned by Plaintiff. Ordinarily, that fact might present a problem. It
does not here.
Plaintiff attached to the Complaint the Property Value Appeals Board (PVAB) order from
which it was appealing. That order identifies the correct tax account number. Thus,
notwithstanding the erroneous tax account number appearing on the face of the complaint, there
was no reasonable uncertainty as to the property at issue in this appeal or the administrative
decision Plaintiff sought to challenge. The attachment is properly considered as part of the
Complaint. See Tax Court Rule- Magistrate Division (TCR-MD) Preface (“All pleadings will be
liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties.”)
After Defendant raised the error in its Motion, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on
June 10, 2026, correcting the property tax account number. Because the responsive pleading had
already been filed, Plaintiff should have sought leave of the court or written consent from the
adverse party prior to filing an amended pleading, per TCR-MD 2 C; Tax Court Rule (TCR) 23.

ORDER TC-MD 260508R 2
Accordingly, the court treats Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as including a motion for leave to
amend and grants that motion. TCR-MD Preface (“The court may grant relief from the
application of these Magistrate Division rules in an individual case for good cause[.]”) TCR 23
A, F.
Defendant nevertheless asks the court to dismiss the appeal due to the clerical error.
However, Defendant does not contend that it was misled as to the property at issue. Defendant
identifies no prejudice resulting from the erroneous account number other than the need to
recognize that the number on the Complaint did not match the number on the attached PVAB
order. The purpose of the pleading rules is to provide fair notice of the claim being asserted and
to permit an orderly resolution of disputes. The court’s rules are not intended to convert a
typographical error into a dispositive event from the document initiating the appeal, particularly
when the Complaint’s attachment unmistakably identifies the property and order being appealed.
The court may permit correction of a defect or mistake when doing so promotes
resolution of the appeal on the merits and does not prejudice the opposing party. TCR 23.
Allowing amendment here serves that purpose. Dismissal under these circumstances would
elevate form over substance without advancing a legitimate procedural interest. Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s filling of the Amended Complaint is
construed as a request for leave to amend under TCR-MD 2 C, the request is granted, and the
amended Complaint correcting the property tax account number is accepted as filed.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

ORDER TC-MD 260508R 3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file and serve an answer to the
Amended Complaint within 14 days of this order.
RICHARD D. DAVIS
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 Richard D. Davis and entered on
September 18, 2026.