Anderson v. County of Wright
| Decision Date | 03 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | 86-CV-20-2479,86-CV-19-2167 |
| Parties | Harlan R. Anderson, Mary J. Anderson, Richard A. Anderson, and Mark W. Anderson, Petitioners, v. County of Wright, Respondent. Harlan Anderson, Petitioner, v. County of Wright, Respondent. |
| Court | Tax Court of Minnesota |
This matter came before The Honorable Jane N. Bowman, Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on November 4, 2020, on Wright County's motions for partial dismissal.
Petitioners Harlan R. Anderson, Mary J. Anderson, Richard A Anderson, and Mark W. Anderson are self-represented, as to Court File Number 86-CV-19-2167. Petitioner Harlan R Anderson is self-represented as to Court File Number 86-CV-20-2479.
Brian J. Asleson, Chief Deputy County Attorney, represents respondent County of Wright.
Respondent Wright County moves to partially dismiss parcels from the above-captioned petitions, arguing that petitioners failed to comply with Minnesota Tax Court Rule 8610.0010 (2019) and Minnesota Statutes section 278.02 (2020), and that the petitions failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court, upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, now makes the following:
1. Wright County's motion to partially dismiss for failure to comply with Minnesota Administrative Rule 8610.0010 and Minnesota Statutes section 278.02 is denied, without prejudice.
2. Wright County's motion to partially dismiss petitioners' challenges to parcels enrolled in the Green Acres program is denied.
3. Mary J. Anderson, Richard A. Anderson, and Mark W. Anderson shall within thirty days amend their Pay 2019 Petition (86-CV-19-2167) to include either their signatures or that of an attorney representing them, so as to comply with Minnesota Tax Court Rule 8610.0010.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
On April 23, 2019, the petitioners-Harlan R. Anderson, Mary J. Anderson, Richard A. Anderson, and Mark W. Anderson-timely filed a property tax petition (later assigned file number 86-CV-19-2167), contesting the January 2, 2018 "[e]stimated market value" of fifteen parcels (the "Pay 2019 Petition").[1] Attached to the petition, which was signed only by Harlan Anderson, were two letters from Mr. Keith Triplett, Chief Deputy Wright County Assessor.[2] These letters described Wright County's approval of reductions in value for almost all of the parcels currently under petition, as well as the County's desire to seek an increase in per-acre value at the local board level.[3]
On May 27, 2020, Harlan Anderson timely filed a property tax petition concerning the same fifteen parcels, but for the January 2, 2019 assessment (the "Pay 2020 Petition"), indicating "Appraisal by income Potential" as the reason for the appeal.[4] In addition to the two letters, mentioned above, Mr. Harlan attached to the Pay 2020 Petition the Cokato Township Board of Appeals and Equalization's April 9, 2018 and February 10, 2020 Meeting Minutes.[5]
With October 2, 2020 motions addressed to only Harlan Anderson, the County moved to partially dismiss these two petitions for: (1) failure to comply with Minnesota Administrative Rule 8610.0010 (2019) and Minn. Stat. § 278.02 (2020); and (2) failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted concerning parcels enrolled in Minnesota's Green Acres program.[6] Although Harlan Anderson did not file a response, he opposed the motions at the hearing.[7] Mary Anderson, Richard Anderson, and Mark Anderson did not appear at the hearing.
As to the Pay 2019 Petition, all four Anderson family members are listed as petitioners.[8] Noting that Harlan Anderson signed the petition as a "representative," the County argues his representation of the other named petitions "is not permitted under Minnesota law." [9] On this basis, the County asserts that the parcels owned by the others must be dismissed.[10] The relevant portion of the administrative rule concerning representation in tax court states the "following persons may practice before the tax court in a regular division matter … an individual, when representing the individual …." Minn. R. 8610.0010(C). In support of the motion, Wright County attached an affidavit stating "[Harlan Anderson] has not cured the Petitions or retained a licensed attorney for representation." [11]
Mary Anderson, Richard Anderson, and Mark Anderson, as named petitioners, are able to represent themselves concerning their parcels. See Minn. R. 8610.0010(C). At the hearing, Wright County acknowledged this, but took issue that they did not sign the petition individually.[12] Rule 11 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure states that "[e]very pleading … shall be signed … by the party." Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.01 (2020).[13] The Rule further states: "An unsigned document shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party." Id.
Rule 11 makes clear the lack of signatures is a curable defect. This court declines to partially dismiss the Pay 2019 Petition for lack of signatures, to allow Mary Anderson, Richard Anderson, and Mark Anderson an opportunity to cure the defect. As such, petitioners have thirty days to cure the defect, by either amending the petition to include their signatures, or the signature of an attorney representing them. See Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park, 699 N.W.2d 307, 312 (Minn. 2005) ().
The Pay 2020 Petition, listing Harlan Anderson as the only petitioner, is signed by him.[14]This court denies the County's motion because the Pay 2020 Petition does not violate Minnesota Administrative Rule 8610.0010, as Harlan Anderson can represent himself.
Wright County next argues the parcels not owned by Harlan Anderson must be dismissed as Minn. Stat. § 278.02 only "allows for 'several parcels of land in or upon which the petitioner has an estate, right, title, interest, or lien …' to be 'included in the same petition.'" [15] Indeed, to bring a property tax petition, a petitioner must have "any estate, right, title, or interest in or lien upon [that] parcel of land …." Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1 (2020). The County argues [16]
Concerning the Pay 2019 Petition, the County incorrectly contends Harlan Anderson is the only petitioner.[17] As discussed above, all four Anderson family members are listed as petitioners, even though the petition lacks signatures, see infra § II.A. Since there is no dispute that all four Anderson petitioners collectively have interests in all fifteen parcels, [18] the Pay 2019 Petition complies with Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1's requirement that the petitioners have an interest in the named parcels.
As to the Pay 2020 Petition, Harlan Anderson is the only named petitioner.[19] Wright County asserts nine (of fifteen) parcels must be dismissed because Harlan Anderson does not have any interest in those nine parcels.[20] In support of the motion, the County offered the affidavit of Brian J. Asleson, counsel to the County.[21] Mr. Asleson attested that based "[u]pon information and belief, as well as the property records of Wright County, six of the fifteen parcels are owned by Harlan Anderson." [22] Additionally, Mr. Asleson attested that "[u]pon information and belief, as well as the property records of Wright County," the remaining nine parcels belonged to either Mary Anderson, Richard Anderson, or Mark Anderson.[23] Wright County did not identify which specific records were relied upon.[24] At the hearing, the County acknowledged there was a "distinct possibility" that Harlan Anderson has a marital interest in Mary Anderson's, his wife's, parcels.[25] In response, Harlan Anderson asserted a "vested interest in all the acres[, ]" but did not elaborate further or offer written evidence of any interest.[26] Given the lack of a developed record as to which parcels Harlan Anderson has any interests, the County's motion for partial dismissal is denied, without prejudice.
The County next moves to partially dismiss fourteen parcels enrolled in the Green Acres program.27[] Wright County's motions request dismissal under Rule 12.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure "for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." 28[] In arguing the "valuation of Green Acres parcels is truly a team effort," Wright County contends that "[u]nless and until the Commissioner of Revenue is made a party, the Court has no jurisdiction over the Commissioner of Revenue and is unable to grant the relief sought by the Petitioner." 29[]
The County points to Estate of Helen Kerwin v. County of Sherburne in support of its argument.30[] No. 71-CV-11-598, 2013 WL 3964478 (Minn T.C. July 16, 2013) (Order for Partial Dismissal); No. 71-CV-11-598, 2013 WL 5969884 (Minn. T.C. Oct. 30, 2013) (Order Denying Request for Reconsideration). In the Estate of Helen Kerwin matter, this court dismissed a Green Acres challenge because the petitioner's requested relief was to order that the Commissioner of Revenue cannot prohibit county assessors from using the income approach when...
To continue reading
Request your trial