Opinion
12421-19
07-31-2024
LONGWOOD PRESERVE HOLDINGS, LLC, LONGWOOD PRESERVE INVESTORS, LLC, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Christian N. Weiler, Judge
This is a syndicated conservation easement case. On June 20, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (Index #223). Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery requests that the Court compel mediation between the parties. On July 19, 2024, respondent filed an Objection to Motion to Compel Discovery. On July 29, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Reply to Objection to Motion to Compel Discovery and lodged a copy of the Reply with the Court. The Court granted petitioner's Motion for Leave, and its Reply was filed on July 29, 2024.
In its Motion to Compel Discovery, petitioner asserts that mediation would allow for a "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination." See Rule 1(d).Petitioner argues that Rule 124(b) allows for voluntary mediation, but it does not foreclose involuntary mediation. Petitioner states that Rule 124(c) allows for alternative dispute resolution, including involuntary mediation. Petitioner suggests that the Court could set "ground rules" for the mediation, such as how a mediator should be selected and the time frame for conducting the mediation; petitioner suggests that the Court can appoint the mediator itself, if necessary. Petitioner also asks that the mediator appoint a qualified appraiser as an expert witness for purposes of he mediation.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In his Objection to petitioner's Motion, respondent asserts that mediation would only further delay this case and increase costs for the Court and the parties. Respondent states that the parties have attempted settlement of this case several times, and the parties are still too far apart for settlement talks to be productive. Respondent also argues that petitioner's "ground rules" will only add to the delay and expenses that mediation will create. Respondent contends that trial is the most efficient way to resolve this case. In its Reply to respondent's Objection, petitioner argues that failure to reach a settlement in the past is not a reason to deny involuntary mediation.
Rule 124 concerns voluntary binding arbitration, voluntary nonbinding mediation, and other methods of dispute resolution. Rule 124(b) allows for voluntary nonbinding mediation when parties move for such by joint or unopposed motion. Rule 124(c) states that "[n]othing contained in this Rule shall be construed to exclude use by the parties of other forms of voluntary disposition of cases." (emphasis added.) Petitioner argues Rule 124(c) allows for involuntary mediation; however, we read this section of the rule to only address voluntary methods of dispute resolution.
We agree with petitioner that (generally speaking) mediation could resolve this case in a more just, speedy, or inexpensive manner. However, we do not find it to be appropriate to require mediation under our Rules, without consent between the parties. Since mediation here would not be voluntary, we also conclude ordering mediation in this case is unlikely to be effective at this time. Since Rule 124 is predicated upon a voluntary method of alternative dispute resolution by the parties, we do not find it appropriate to grant petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery.
Considering the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on June 20, 2024, is denied.