Julian v. Lake County Assessor

Full title: CAROLYN A. JULIAN, Plaintiff v. LAKE COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant and…

Court: Tax Court of Oregon

Date published: Dec 16, 2013

TC-MD 130464N (Or. T.C. Dec. 16, 2013)

Opinion

TC-MD 130464N

12-16-2013

CAROLYN A. JULIAN, Plaintiff v. LAKE COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant and DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Oregon, Defendant-Intervenor.

ALLISON R. BOOMER MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL

ALLISON R. BOOMER MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This matter is before the court on Defendant-Intervenor's (the Department) Motion to Dismiss (Motion), filed December 5, 2013. As of the date of this Decision of Dismissal, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Department's Motion.

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 10, 2013, challenging the Department's 2013 Recertification Denial for the Senior and Disabled Property Tax Deferral Program. (Ptf's Compl at 2.) A case management conference was held on November 13, 2013, during which Plaintiff agreed to provide a copy of her deed to the Department by November 20, 2013. The Department agreed to file written recommendations by November 27, 2013, and Plaintiff agreed to file a written response to the Department's recommendations by December 4, 2013.

On December 3, 2013, the Department's representative filed a letter stating that she received some information from Plaintiff, but had further questions for Plaintiff. (Inv's Ltr at 1, Dec 3, 2013.) The Department's representative “tried numerous times to contact [Plaintiff], but was not successful in reaching her.” (Id.) On December 5, 2013, the Department filed its Motion requesting that this “appeal [be] dismissed based on the fact that [P]laintiff has received the relief requested.” (Inv's Mot at 2.) The Department explained that, after considering additional information received following the case management conference in this matter, the Department determined that Plaintiff's “homestead is eligible for 100 [percent] deferral for 2013” and reactivated Plaintiff's account. (Id.)

After considering the matter, the court concludes that the Department's Motion should be granted because Plaintiff has received her requested relief. Now, therefore, IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Defendant-Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed.