BFW Co. v. County of Ramsey, C9-96-3330

• Decision Date: 19 November 1996
• Docket Number: C9-96-3330
• Parties: BFW COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF RAMSEY, Respondent.
• Court: Tax Court of Minnesota

BFW COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF RAMSEY, Respondent.

No. C9-96-3330

Tax Court of Minnesota, Regular Division, Second Judicial District, Ramsey County

November 19, 1996

The Respondent's motion to dismiss the above matter was heard by the Honorable Kathleen Doar, Chief Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on November 14, 1996, at the Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Jean Stepan, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.

Larry Neilson, Attorney at Law, represented the Petitioner.

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

Kathleen Doar, Chief Judge

Now, on motion of Respondent, this matter is hereby dismissed for failure of Petitioner to provide income and expense data as required by Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MEMORANDUM

On April 1, 1996, BFW Company filed a Minn.Stat. ch. 278 petition challenging the January 2, 1995 estimated market value of Crown Plaza Shopping Center in St. Paul (the “Center”). The Center is income-producing property. Therefore, BFW Company was required to provide income and expense data (“Financial Data”) to the county assessor within 60 days of filing its petition. Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a) (“The Sixty Day Rule”). BFW Company did not deliver Financial Data to the county assessor until October 10, 1996, more than 6 months from April 1, 1996. Ramsey County moves to dismiss on these facts.

The Sixty Day Rule reads in relevant part as follows:

Failure to provide the information [the Financial Data] required in this paragraph shall result in the dismissal of the petition, unless the failure to provide it was due to the unavailability of the evidence at that time.

Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a)

BFW Company filed the affidavits of Eugene Berwald, a BFW Company partner, and Richard W. Ducharme, Vice President at Towle Real Estate Company and agent/manager of the Center. Mr Ducharme and Mr. Berwald state that “reliable” Financial Data was not available until after August 15, 1996 because of a change in Center management. Neither Mr Ducharme nor Mr. Berwald state that Financial Data was unavailable. Petitioner clearly had Financial Data which it did not deliver.^[1] We find such facts do not constitute “unavailability” within the meaning of The Sixty Day Rule.

BFW Company argues that Ramsey County was not prejudiced by its failure to file the Center Financial Data within the required 60 days. We held that...