Chambers Self-Storage Oakdale, LLC v. County of Washington
| Decision Date | 29 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | 82-CV-19-2079,82-CV-17-1685,82-CV-18-2123 |
| Parties | Chambers Self-Storage Oakdale, LLC, Petitioner, v. County of Washington, Respondent. |
| Court | Tax Court of Minnesota |
These matters came on for hearing before the Honorable Jane N Bowman, Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on petitioner Chambers Self-Storage Oakdale, LLC's motions: (1) to withdraw certain deemed admissions; (2) to consolidate the above-captioned three petitions; (3) to compel Washington County to fully respond to petitioner's discovery; and (4) for leave to amend petitioner's petitions (82-CV-17-1685 & 82-CV-18-2123) to include constitutional claims.
Diana Longrie, Attorney, represents petitioner Chambers Self-Storage Oakdale, LLC.
Richard D. Hodsdon, Assistant County Attorney, represents respondent Washington County.
The court, upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein now makes the following:
1. Petitioner's motion to withdraw certain deemed admissions is granted. Petitioner's deemed admissions as to Request for Admission Numbers 4, 7, 10, 11, 16, 19, 22, and 23 are withdrawn.
2. Petitioner's motion to consolidate the three above-captioned matters is granted in part, and denied in part. Court File Numbers 82-CV-17-1685 & 82-CV-18-2123 are consolidated, but Court File Number 82-CV-19-2079 is not.
3. Trial in the consolidated matters, Court File Numbers 82-CV-17-1685 & 82-CV-18-2123, shall commence on September 15, 2020, at the Washington County Courthouse 14949 62nd Street North, Stillwater, Minnesota.[1]
4. Petitioner's motion to compel discovery is denied.
5. Petitioner's motion for leave to amend petitions (82-CV-17-1685 & 82-CV-18-2123) to include constitutional claims is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
On April 25, 2017, Chambers timely filed a property tax petition, later captioned 82-CV-17-1685 ("Pay 2017 Petition"), contesting the January 2, 2016 assessment.[2] Chambers alleged its property was both overvalued and unequally assessed.[3] The Pay 2017 Petition did not contain any express constitutional claims.
To promote the orderly progression of this case, this court filed a Scheduling Order on April 29, 2019, that set certain deadlines, such as a deadline to notice experts, an appraisal exchange date (February 24, 2020), a deadline to file and serve witness and exhibit lists (April 13, 2020), and a trial-ready date (April 27, 2020).[4] The Scheduling Order also noted: "Extensions or continuances of the dates specified in this order-including the trial-ready date- will not be granted except by written motion, supported by an affidavit showing good cause, which shall not include belated settlement negotiations, failure to retain an appraiser/expert, or any other failure to diligently prepare for trial." [5]
Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Washington County timely served an appraisal report (for both the Pay 2017 Petition and the Pay 2018 Petition).[6] The County also served and filed its witness and exhibit lists on April 22, 2020.[7] Although Chambers hired an appraiser, as of the date of this order, it has yet to serve an appraisal report on the County.[8] Neither party served nor filed a pretrial brief as instructed by the Scheduling Order.[9]
Chambers timely filed a property tax petition, later captioned 82-CV-18-2067 ("Pay 2018 Petition"), disputing the January 2, 2017 assessment.[10] Again, the 2018 Petition asserted overvaluation and unequal assessment, although there was no express constitutional claim.[11] This court again filed a Scheduling Order that set deadlines, which coincidently closely coincided with the deadlines set forth in the Pay 2017 Scheduling Order.[12] The Pay 2018 Scheduling Order also included a provision noting that extensions or continuances would not be granted absent good cause.[13]
As noted previously, the County timely served its appraisal report on Chambers.[14] The County also served and filed its witness and exhibit lists.[15] Although Chambers named its appraiser for the Pay 2018 Petition on February 7, 2020, [16] Chambers did not serve an appraisal report on the County, nor did it serve or file any pretrial documents.[17]
Chambers timely filed a third property tax petition, later captioned 82-CV-19-2079 ("Pay 2019 Petition"), challenging the January 2, 2018 assessment.[18] Chambers again alleges overvaluation and unequal assessment, but also asserts "Constitutional error in that like properties are taxed differently and unequally." [19] This court has not yet filed a Scheduling Order for the Pay 2019 Petition. As such, deadlines to exchange appraisal reports and file pretrial documents have not yet been set.
Washington County electronically served discovery on Chambers on March 8, 2018, [20]including Requests for Admissions that the subject property (land and improvements) was neither over-assessed nor unequally assessed.[21] On May 29, 2018, Chambers responded to the County's Requests for Admissions, either objecting to or denying the above-referenced Requests.[22]
For the Pay 2018 Petition, Chambers served discovery on Washington County on December 12, 2019.[23] First, Chambers' Interrogatories identified several other mini storage properties in the County, and for each of those properties, Chambers' Interrogatories read:
Describe, explain and show your calculations, in detail, to demonstrate the methodology including identification of the data used (and the source of the data) and the adjusted cap rate applied, if any, together with whether you used a sales comparison approach, an income approach or some other appraisal approach in determining the 2016 [or 2017] Taxable Market Value of the Similar Property with a PID of [Washington County mini storage property identification number].[24]
After two reminder letters and a phone call, [25] on March 4, 2020, the County responded to each Interrogatory with the same answer:
The method and technique utilized to derive an assessment for January 2, 2016 and January 2, 2017 prepared for ad valorem taxation relate specifically to the mass appraisal process. Respondent identified the subject property, reviewed the market area of consistent behavior that applied to properties; identified characteristics and the relationship that affect the creation of value in the market area; determined the contribution of the individual characteristics affecting value; applied the conclusions and reviewed the results of the mass appraisal results. If the subject property owner provides their actual pertinent data specific to the lease, Respondent would have utilized their information prior to finalizing the assessed valuation submitted to Petitioner. Further, see the appraisal previously served upon counsel for the Petitioner.[26]
Chambers' Requests for the Production of Documents for the Pay 2018 Petition likewise sought information concerning a list of mini storage properties within Washington County.[27] For example, Chambers' Request Number 1 identified 26 separate PIDs of mini storage facilities in Washington County, and then asked for "documents, containing income and expense figures, used by the Defendant in determining or calculating the Taxable Market Value for the tax payable years of 2016, 2017, and 2018." [28] For the previously-identified 26 PIDs, Chambers requested documents showing net rentable areas, leasing information, accepted or rejected modifications to assessed values, property tax appeals, protocols for determining vacancy rates, credit loss allowances, and current rental rates.[29] Chambers also requested policies and procedures for collecting data and determining assessed values generally.[30] On April 8, 2020, the County served Chambers with its Supplemental[31] Answers to Production of Documents, responding to a different document request than Chambers identified previously, stating:
In support of its motion to compel, Chambers claims that it "sent a letter, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §13.51 Subd.4, to all owners of self-storage facilities in Washington County to inform them that any property assessment data pertaining to their property, on file with Washington County, was being required as part of legal discovery …." [33] It further asserts: "None of the property owners have objected or intervened in this action to restrict the disclosure of property assessment data pertaining to their respective properties." [34] After the motion hearing, Chambers supplemented the record on this point, submitting an affidavit attesting to the names and addresses of those who had received the notice, the specific notice given, and confirmation that, although inquiries were received, no one objected to the discovery requests.[35]
"A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters [that are relevant to the party's claim or defense]." Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.01 26.02. "The matter is admitted unless within 30 days after service of the request … the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer...
To continue reading
Request your trial