Full Opinion

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Property Tax JERRY LINSTROM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 260092G ) v. ) ) LINCOLN COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) ) Defendant. ) DECISION OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff appealed the 2025-26 real market value of property identified as Account Number R61258 (subject). At trial, Plaintiff appeared pro se and testified. Defendant was represented by its appraiser, Nicholas Kolen. Plaintiff’s Exhibits 0, 1, 3 to 19, and 21 were admitted, and Defendant’s Rebuttal Exhibit C was admitted. I. FACTS The subject is undeveloped land along the Siletz River, improved with a shed, a fence, and a dock with a walkway and a ramp, and served with water and electric utility connections. (Ptf’s Ex 1 at 1–2.) The subject’s real market value on the 2025-26 tax roll is $111,810. (Ptf’s Ex 12 at 1.) Plaintiff requests the court reduce that value to $61,188. (Compl at 1.) As evidence of value, Plaintiff presented a brief summary of a “cost approach.” (Ptf’s Ex 1 at 1–2.) Plaintiff calculated the subject’s land value by averaging per-square-foot values derived from Defendant’s records of four other properties (ranging from $2.69 to $15.08 per square foot), multiplying the resulting $9.22 by Plaintiff’s preferred square footage for the subject, and applying a discount. (Ptf’s Exs 1 at 1; 11 at 1–5.) Plaintiff’s summary states he used Marshall & Swift cost factors to determine the amount of that discount and the improvement value. (Ptf’s Ex 1 at 1–2.) DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 260092G 1 of 4 Plaintiff’s remaining evidence and testimony alleged errors in Defendant’s records for the subject. Specifically, he alleged errors concerning the subject’s class code and classification as “residential” rather than “riverfront,” the characterization of the subject’s potential for obtaining septic approval, and the square footage of the entire subject, as well as of the walkway, ramp, and dock. (Ptf’s Ex 3 at 1.) Plaintiff also testified to errors and inconsistencies between Defendant’s records and evidence presented by Defendant at the property value appeals board. II. MOTION TO DISMISS At the close of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of sufficient evidence to bear Plaintiff’s burden of proof and the court granted the motion. An explanation of that ruling follows. Motions to dismiss during trial are considered under either TCR 54 B(2) or TCR 60. 1 TCR 54 B(2) is modeled on ORCP 54 B(2), 2 which permits trial courts to dismiss claims during trial after weighing the evidence, resolving conflicts within it, or disbelieving it. Venture Properties, Inc. v. Parker, 223 Or App 321, 340–41, 195 P3d 470, 483 (2008). Courts exercise their power under that rule “sparingly” to allow adequate time for consideration. See id. at 341. TCR 60 permits dismissal where the moving party has demonstrated that “the record contains no evidence to support the nonmoving party’s claim or claims.” Freitag v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 368, 373-74 (2005) (quoted in Linstrom v. Dept. of Rev. (Linstrom X), 3 TC 5459, 2024 WL 1047322 at *1 (Or Tax Mar 11, 2024)). “Dismissal under TCR 60 is appropriate when a plaintiff taxpayer ‘merely assert[s] that the county made certain mistakes,’ without offering any 1 Tax Court Rules (TCR) 2 Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP) 3 Citations to Plaintiff’s prior cases are differentiated by Roman numerals corresponding to the order in which they were decided. DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 260092G 2 of 4 evidence supporting the taxpayer's own contended value.” Linstrom X, 2024 WL 1047322 at *1 (quoting Freitag, 18 OTR at 373–74). The court reviews evidence “without any presumption as to the correctness of the assessor’s valuation” on the tax roll. J. R. Widmer, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 261 Or 371, 378, 494 P2d 854 (1972); PacifiCorp v. Dept. of Rev., 25 OTR 227, 251 n 16 (2023) (noting Oregon Supreme Court abolished the judicial presumption of assessment validity in 1972). Thus, a value on a tax roll is not probative of market value; it must be supported by market evidence. Cf. Linstrom v. Lincoln County Assessor (Linstrom IV), TC-MD 200147G, 2021 WL 871211 at *3 n 5 (Or Tax M Div Mar 9, 2021) (noting land value on tax statements unsupported without “additional evidence”). In this case, Plaintiff put forward a value calculation he called a cost approach. In a cost approach, an improvements value is derived from market-based cost factors and a land value is derived from other market evidence. Plaintiff reports that he used cost factors in reaching an improvements value. However, an improvements value by itself does not establish the market value of undeveloped land. Plaintiff’s requested land value derives from measurements and values found on the tax roll for other properties. Plaintiff does not support those figures with evidence drawn from outside the tax roll. In effect, Plaintiff asks the court to assume—without evidence—that the tax roll is accurate with respect to those other properties but not with respect to the subject. Plaintiff gives no grounds for making that assumption, and the court does not presume the accuracy of any tax roll. See J. R. Widmer, 261 Or at 378. Because Plaintiff’s land value for the subject is not supported with evidence from the market, Plaintiff’s cost approach is not evidence of market value. DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 260092G 3 of 4 Plaintiff’s remaining evidence concerns alleged errors in Defendant’s records; it does not show the subject’s real market value. As has been pointed out to Plaintiff more than once: “[I]t is not enough for a taxpayer to criticize a county’s position. Taxpayers must provide competent evidence of the [real market value] of their property.” Woods v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 56, 59 (2002); Linstrom v. Lincoln County Assessor (Linstrom V), TC-MD 220086R, 2023 WL 3196495 at *5 (Or Tax M Div May 2, 2023); Linstrom IV, 2021 WL 871211 at *4. III. CONCLUSION Because no evidence of market value was adduced at trial, dismissal under TCR 60 is appropriate. Now, therefore, IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. POUL F. LUNDGREN MAGISTRATE To appeal this Decision, file a complaint in the Regular Division of the Oregon Tax Court. Appeals are accepted by electronic filing; by mail at 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563; and by hand delivery to 1241 State Street, Salem, OR, Floor 4R. 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 November 10, 2026. DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 260092G 4 of 4