Mednansky v. Dept. of Rev.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO VACATE
AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS TC 5465 	Page 1 of 3
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
Property Tax
DAVID JOHN MEDNANSKY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon,
Defendant,
and
CURRY COUNTY ASSESSOR,
Defendant-Intervenor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC 5465
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO VACATE AND FOR IMPOSITION
OF SANCTIONS
This matter comes before the court on two motions filed by Plaintiff that follow from the
court’s July 2, 2024, Order Granting Curry County Assessor’s Motion to Intervene in this matter
(order). Defendant responded to each motion, and the court heard oral argument as part of a case
management conference on July 22, 2024.
On June 17, 2024, Defendant-Intervenor (the county) filed a Motion to Intervene in this
property tax case as well as its Answer (answer). To each document, the county attached a
certificate of service showing service on Plaintiff and listing the house number of Plaintiff’s
address as 27485 Eighty Acres Road, although the correct house number is 27486. The county
concedes its error. On July 2, 2024, after the period to object to the Motion to Intervene had
passed without response, the court issued its order allowing intervention. A few minutes later,
Plaintiff informed court staff by email that he had read the order but had never received copies of

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO VACATE
AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS TC 5465 	Page 2 of 3
the Motion to Intervene or of the answer. Court staff transmitted copies to Plaintiff by email a
few minutes after that.
On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions against counsel for the county
(motion for sanctions). On July 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Order Granting Curry
County’s Motion to Intervene (motion to vacate). In both motions, Plaintiff asserted that the
county’s error deprived him of the ability to respond before the court allowed intervention.
(Ptf’s Mot to Vacate at 2 (Plaintiff “could not file a response to oppose.”); (Ptf’s Motion for
Sanctions at 2 (“Plaintiff has been deprived of the ability to reply to both motion to intervene and
the answer.”).)
In response to the motion to vacate, Defendant argues, among other things, that there is
no evidence that the county’s error “affect[s] the substantial rights” of Plaintiff, and that the court
is thus required to deny the motion. Tax Court Rule (TCR) 12 B (“The court will, in every stage
of an action, disregard any error, defect, or omission in the pleadings or proceedings which does
not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party.”) (emphasis added). (Def’s Response to
Motion to Vacate at 2.)
The court agrees with Defendant. Plaintiff asks the court to undo its order allowing
intervention, but his motion offers no substantive reason why the county should not be allowed
to intervene. It is true that the county’s error in service prevented Plaintiff from presenting
substantive arguments before the court allowed intervention. However, Plaintiff promptly
asserted a right to be heard by moving to vacate the court’s order. When Defendant argued that
the order did not affect Plaintiff’s substantial rights, Plaintiff replied by simply reiterating his due

process 	argument. 	(Ptf's 	Reply 	at 	2.) 	Likewise, 	at 	oral 	argument 	Plaintiff added 	no 	substantive
objections 	to 	intervention.
The 	court 	finds 	no 	evidence 	that 	the 	county's 	error 	affected 	Plaintiff's 	substantial 	rights;
accordingly, 	the 	court 	will 	deny 	Plaintiffs 	motion 	to 	vacate 	pursuant 	to 	TCR 	12 	B.
The 	same 	findings 	and 	reasoning 	apply 	to 	Plaintiff's 	motion 	for 	sanctions, 	except 	that 	this
motion 	points 	out 	that 	the 	county's 	error 	deprived 	him 	not 	only 	of the 	ability 	to 	timely 	oppose
intervention, 	but 	also 	of the 	ability 	to 	timely 	file 	any 	reply 	to 	the 	county's 	answer. 	(Ptfs 	Motion
for 	Sanctions 	at 	2.) 	See 	TCR 	13 	B. 	The 	possibility 	of a 	reply 	is 	not 	squarely 	covered 	by
Plaintiff' s 	motion 	to 	vacate. 	Therefore, 	the 	court 	will 	allow 	Plaintiff 	10 	days from 	entry 	of this
order 	to 	file 	any reply. 	Now, 	therefore,
1T 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff's 	Motion 	to 	Vacate 	is 	denied;
1T 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff's 	Motion 	for 	Sanctions 	is 	denied; 	and
1T 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff is 	allowed 	ten 	days 	to 	file 	any 	reply 	to
Defendant-Intervenor's 	Answer.
Dated 	this 	23rd 	day 	of July, 	2024.
7/23/2024 12:09:32 	PM
(7
Judge 	Robert T. 	Manlcke
ORDER 	ON 	PLAINTIFF'S 	MOTIONS 	TO 	VACATE
AND 	FOR 	IMPOSITION 	OF 	SANCTIONS 	TC 	5465 	Page 	3 	of 3