Ove & Lora Petersen Rev Liv Trust v. Washington County Assessor

DECISION TC-MD 230067G 	1 of 6
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax
OVE & LORA PETERSEN REV LIV
TRUST,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, 	TC-MD 230067G
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY ASSESSOR,
DECISION	Defendant.
Plaintiff appeals the 2022–23 real market value of a residential property with two rented
accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The property is identified in Defendant’s records as Account
R2150810. Plaintiff was represented at trial by one of its trustees, Ove Petersen. Testifying for
Plaintiff was Dawn O’Leary, SRA. Defendant was represented at trial by its appraisal
supervisor, Adrienne Wilkes. Testifying for Defendant was Tyler Colson, Appraiser II.
Plaintiff’s Exhibits B, C, and G through L were received into evidence, along with Defendant’s
Exhibits A and B.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The subject is an improved lot in the Metzger neighborhood just outside Tigard. (Def’s
Ex A at 4.) It has a newly constructed house and detached garage, which are divided into three
living units: (1) the 2,431-square-foot main house, comprising the house’s two above-grade
floors; (2) a 1,329-square-foot basement ADU with separate entrance; and (3) a 569-square-foot
apartment above the garage, the second ADU.1 (Id. at 5; Ptf’s Ex L at 21.) The construction was
done by Mr. Petersen, who is a builder.
1 The court accepts the square footage reported by Plaintiff’s appraiser; the difference between the
appraisers' square footages is immaterial to the analysis.

DECISION TC-MD 230067G 	2 of 6
The board of property tax appeals determined the subject’s tax roll real market value was
$1,033,300 and its exception value was $402,189. (Compl at 2.) Plaintiff now asks the court to
reduce the subject’s real market value to $969,000, the amount concluded by Plaintiff’s
appraiser. (Ptf’s Ex L at 3.) Defendant asks the court to reallocate the value between land and
improvements in a way that slightly raises the overall value (to $1,042,000) but leaves the
exception value unchanged at $402,189. (Def’s Ex A at 3.)
II. ANALYSIS
At issue is the subject’s 2022–23 real market value and, ultimately, the exception value
used to recalculate the subject’s maximum assessed value.2
A. 	Burden of Proof and Standing
The burden of proof in this court must be borne by the party seeking a change in the tax
assessment. See ORS 305.427.3 The task of proving property value in court is complicated by
the imprecision of property appraisal. This court has noted that, in an ordinary case, appraisers
concluding to values within 10 percent of each other are deemed equally competent. Price v.
Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 18, 25 (1977). Commenting on a case in which the plaintiff had sought a
smaller reduction, the court stated:
“[T]he plaintiff set himself an almost impossible task by seeking in this court a
reduction in value of a personal residence which was within eight percent of the
assessed value as established by the county board of equalization and the
defendant! A person experienced in property valuation, having convinced himself
that a 10 percent differential or less was involved, would ordinarily seek to
dissuade a client from an appeal.”
Id.
2 Although Plaintiff’s Complaint identified this as an improvements-only appeal, both parties’ appraisers
valued the entire property and at the pretrial conference the parties agreed to consider both land and improvement
value.
3 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2023.

DECISION TC-MD 230067G 	3 of 6
Here, Plaintiff seeks a reduction in real market value only six percent less than the roll
value. Plaintiff must bear the burden of showing a value lower than what is currently on the roll.
See ORS 305.427. Given the slight difference from the roll, Plaintiff would need extraordinary
evidence to meet that burden. See Price, 7 OTR at 25.
Defendant, for its part, seeks an even smaller change—an increase of less than one
percent in real market value, and no change at all in exception value. It would fall on Defendant
to provide proof that such a change was warranted if it had standing to make the claim.
However, a party has standing to seek relief in this court only if “the court’s decision in the
matter will have some practical effect on the rights of the parties to the controversy.” Rains v.
Stayton Builders Mart, Inc., 359 Or 610, 624, 375 P3d 490 (2016) (quoting Brumnett v. PSRB,
315 Or 402, 405, 848 P2d 1194 (1993)). Without a change to the exception value, the subject’s
assessed value would remain the same. Therefore, a ruling granting Defendant’s request to raise
the subject’s real market value would not alter the amount of taxed owed on the subject. Such a
ruling would have no immediate practical effect on tax liability. Defendant’s request to increase
the subject’s real market value is therefore dismissed.
B. 	Plaintiff’s Value Evidence
Plaintiff’s appraiser, Dawn O’Leary, prepared an appraisal report in which she placed all
weight on the sales comparison approach. (Ptf’s Ex L.) She identified six comparables, all
residential properties with at least one ADU. (Id. at 2, 6.) She adjusted for several factors—the
most pertinent to this analysis being a time trend for market conditions. (Id.) Ms. O’Leary
admitted an error in the time adjustment to Sale 1; a table summarizing all of the time
adjustments is printed in the court’s analysis below.

DECISION TC-MD 230067G 	4 of 6
Ms. O’Leary’s adjusted sale prices ranged from $851,183 for Sale 1 to $1,081,600 for
Sale 3. (Ptf’s Ex L at 2, 6.) Her value conclusion was a weighted average of the comparables’
adjusted sales prices, which she derived from software that assigned each sale a relative weight
ranging from 15.9 percent to 17.43 percent “by using the Gross Adjustment of sale price for each
comparable as a measure of the relative quality of the comp.” (Id. at 21.) The basis for the
software’s allocation of weight was unexplained. Her final value conclusion, as has been stated
above, was $969,000.
Ms. O’Leary prepared a cost approach using data from DwellingCost.com and from
actual costs provided by Mr. Petersen. She testified that DwellingCost.com does not contain
data for ADU costs and that the subject’s value may include “sweat equity” not reflected in the
actual costs incurred by Mr. Petersen. She also prepared an income approach using the subject’s
actual rent as a multiplier; she did not perform a study to determine market rent. Ms. O’Leary
placed no reliance on either her cost or her income approach.
C. 	Court’s Analysis
The following table corrolates the dates of Ms. O’Leary’s comparable sales with
Ms. O’Leary’s time adjustments as a percentage of the unadjusted sale price.
Sale 1 	Sale 2 	Sale 3 	Sale 4 	Sale 5 	Sale 6
Sale Date 	3/2020 	7/2020 	4/2021 	9/2020 	2/2021 	1/2021
Sale Price 	$808,583 	$785,000 	$905,000 	$707,500 	$720,000 	$730,000
Time Adj 	$64,400 	$117,000 	$63,400 	$89,000 	$103,000 	$80,300
Time Adj/
Sale Price
8.0% 	14.9% 	7.0% 	12.6% 	14.3% 	11.0%
(See Ptf’s Ex L at 2, 6.) The table raises questions about the accuracy of Ms. O’Leary’s
adjustments, given unrebutted evidence that the market was rising during all relevant periods.
(See Def’s Ex B at 1–3.) Notably, Sale 1 received an 8-percent adjustment, while Sale 2
received a 14.9-percent adjustment, although Sale 2 occurred four months later in a rising

DECISION TC-MD 230067G 	5 of 6
market. Ms. O’Leary admitted that her adjustment of Sale 1 was an error, and testified that it
should have been more similar to the adjustment applied to Sale 2. There is also a discrepency in
the adjustments to Sales 5 and 6, with the former receiving the greater adjustment despite
occurring earlier.
RMLS surveys indicate average sale prices increased 7.6 percent in 2020 and 15.8
percent in 2021. (Def’s Ex B at 2–3.) If those figures are accepted, Ms. O’Leary’s time
adjustments are far too low. Sale 6, occurring in January 2021, should have been adjusted 15.8
percent instead of 11 percent, and Sales 1, 2, and 4, which occurred in 2020, should have
received even greater adjustments (22.1, 19.6, and 18.3 percent, respectively). If Ms. O’Leary’s
comparables had received a time adjustment consistent with the RMLS surveys, her computer-
generated weighting scale would yield a final value of $1,014,713—a conclusion within two
percent of the roll value.
The propriety of that computer-generated weighting scale remains in doubt, given that
Ms. O’Leary was unable to explain it on cross-examination. Of concern is the fact that one of
the two sales identified as most comparable by Ms. O’Leary—Sale 5—was assigned the lowest
weight by the computer.
III. CONCLUSION
Considering the limits on the precision of property appraisal, Plaintiff had “an almost
impossible task” in proving a real market value reduction of six percent. See Price, 7 OTR at 25.
Given the significant errors in the appraisal, Plaintiff has not met its burden of proof.
Defendant’s request to raise the roll value is dismissed for lack of standing. Now, therefore,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal of the 2022–23 real
market value of property identified as Account R2150810 be denied.

DECISION TC-MD 230067G 	6 of 6
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Defendant’s request to raise the roll value be dismissed.
POUL F. LUNDGREN
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 Magistrate Poul F. Lundgren and
entered on January 9, 2025.