Jim Bern Co. v. County of Ramsey

• Decision Date: 09 January 2018
• Docket Number: 62-CV-17-2723
• Parties: Jim Bern Company, Petitioner, v. County of Ramsey, Respondent.
• Court: Tax Court of Minnesota

Jim Bern Company, Petitioner, v. County of Ramsey, Respondent.

No. 62-CV-17-2723

Tax Court of Minnesota, Regular Division, Ramsey County

January 9, 2018

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND PETITION

This matter came before the Honorable Bradford S. Delapena, Chief Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on petitioner Jim Bern Company's motion to amend a property tax petition.

Craig A. Kepler and Jenna K. Johnson, Lindquist & Vennum LLP represent petitioner Jim Bern Company.

James A. Mogen, Assistant County Attorney, represents respondent Ramsey County.

Petitioner Jim Bern Company brings this motion to amend its property tax petition filed on April 28, 2017, contesting the assessment of four parcels of land for property taxes payable in 2017. We deny Bern's motion.

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the court now makes the following:

ORDER

Petitioner Jim Bern Company's motion to amend its property tax petition filed April 28, 2017, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MEMORANDUM

BRADFORD S. DELAPENA, CHIEF JUDGE MINNESOTA TAX COURT.

I. Introduction

On April 28, 2017, petitioner Jim Bern Company filed a property tax Petition for taxes payable in 2017 challenging respondent Ramsey County's assessment of four parcels of land: "the following described contiguous parcels which are developed and operated as a single project: PID Nos.: 02-28-22-44-0056, 02-28-22-44-0074, 02-28-22-44-0075 and 02-28-22-44-0093."^[1] Bern attached to the Petition copies of valuation notices for each of the four identified parcels.^[2] The Petition alleged that "[t]he estimated market value is greater than the property's actual market value" and that the property was "unequally assessed." ^[3]

On September 19, 2017, Bern filed a motion for leave to amend the Petition so as to challenge the County's valuation of 34 additional parcels of land.^[4] Briefly, Bern explains that the Petition "identified only the parcels located on the four corners of the city block that comprises the Project, "^[5] and contends that "[t]he Amended Petition merely clarifies the description of the Project." ^[6] The County opposes Bern's motion, arguing that the additional claims Bern seeks to add are time-barred.^[7]

II. Governing Law

The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure "govern the procedures in the Tax Court, where practicable." Minn. Stat. § 271.06, subd. 7 (2016). Minnesota is a notice-pleading jurisdiction. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 604-05 (Minn. 2014). Rule 8.01 provides in part that "[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for relief... shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim ...." Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.01. Chapter 278, however, provides in part that a property tax petition "shall clearly identify ... the land involved, the assessment date, and shall set forth in concise language the claim ... asserted." Minn. Stat. § 278.02 (2016) (emphasis added).

The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure "do not govern pleadings, practice and procedure" in appeals brought under chapter 278 "insofar as [such statutory pleadings, practice and procedure] are inconsistent or in conflict with the rules." Minn. R. Civ. P. 81.01(a). Rather than decide whether the separate pleading standards of section 278.02 and Rule 8.01 are inconsistent (so that the statute prevails), we simply apply the statutory pleading standard to Bern's Petition. See Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis, 823 N.W.2d 638, 649 (Minn. 2012) (applying the statutory pleading requirements to a property tax petition and commenting that "[w]e interpret the filing requirements in the statute strictly"); Federated Retail Holdings, Inc. v. Cty. of Ramsey, 820 N.W.2d 553, 558 (Minn. 2012) (same, emphasizing that a property tax petition must "clearly identify the ... land involved") (omission in original).

The amendment of pleadings in tax court generally is governed by Rule 15. See, e.g., Marlow Timberland, LLC v. Cty. of Lake, 800 N.W.2d 637, 639-40 (Minn. 2011) (applying Rule 15.01 to the amendment of a property tax petition). Rule 15 provides, in pertinent part:

A party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.

Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01. "Rule 15.01, is intended to be liberally construed so that cases are decided on their merits." Fore v. Crop Hail Mgmt, 270 N.W.2d 13, 14 (Minn. 1978). Echoing the Rule's text, the Minnesota Supreme Court has emphasized that "a motion to amend pursuant to [Rule] 15.01 'should be freely granted, except where to do so would result in prejudice to the other party.' " Marlow Timberland, 800 N.W.2d at 640 (quoting Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993)). The burden of proving prejudice is on the party objecting to the amendment. McDonald v. Stonebraker, 255 N.W.2d 827, 830 (Minn. 1977).

Rule 15 allows a plaintiff to assert new claims. Heyn v. Braun, 239 Minn. 496, 501, 59 N.W.2d 326, 330 (1953) (so explaining). Under specified circumstances, the plaintiff may add new claims even though they are outside the applicable statute of limitations at the time the plaintiff seeks to amend. To avoid an otherwise applicable statute of limitations, the new claim must arise "out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading." Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.03; Haugland ex rel. Donovan v. Mapleview Lounge & Bottleshop, Inc., 666 N.W.2d 689, 694 (Minn. 2003) (applying the indicated standard). When this standard is satisfied, "the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading." Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.03 (emphasis added); Mapleview Lounge, 666 N.W.2d at 694 (so holding). "Essentially, Rule 15.03 operates to treat the [new] claim as if it had been included in the initial pleading. The rule does not toll the running of the statute of limitations, but construes the claim as having been asserted at an earlier date." 1 David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota Practice-Civil Rules Annotated § 15:8 (6th ed.), Westlaw (database updated May 2017) [hereinafter Civil Rules Annotated].

III. The Parties' Contentions

In its April 2017 Petition, Bern stated that the land involved is "the following described contiguous parcels which are developed and operated as a single project: PID Nos.: 02-28-22-44-0056, 02-28-22-44-0074, 02-28-22-44-0075 and 02-28-22-44-0093."^[8] Bern's present submission adds that "[t]he project mentioned in the Original Petition is a multi-unit residential rental project operated as a single project under the name Georgetown Park." ^[9] Bern's counsel explains as follows Bern's need for leave to amend:

On August 29, 2017, while at the site, I learned that the four parcels specified by PID Number in the Original Petition are not in fact contiguous, nor do they comprise the entire Project. Rather, the four specified PID Numbers identified only the parcels located on the four corners of the city block that comprises the Project. The interior portion of the Project, lying between these four corners, is comprised of additional parcels with separate PID Numbers.^[10]

Bern "now seeks to amend its Original Petition to make clear that the land described therein and for which [Bern] seeks relief includes all 38 of the parcels" making up Georgetown Park.^[11] Bern's essential contention about the 34 additional parcels is: "[E]ven though the interior portion of the Project is comprised of parcels with separate PID Numbers, the Original Petition describes those parcels as part of the property at issue." ^[12] Bern thus argues that "[t]he proposed Amended Petition would not add land to the Original Petition that was not encompassed by the initial filing ...." ^[13] Instead, according to Bern, "[t]he Amended Petition merely clarifies the description of the Project...." [^14]

The County contests Bern's assertion that the proposed amendment would not add land to this matter: "The requested amendment would add 34 new parcels of land to the Original Petition, and would do so almost six months after the deadline for filing." ^[15] The County's response thus contains at least two separate threads.

First, the County contends that the text of the Petition does not identify the 34 interior parcels, and that the court should not "read words into the Original Petition that are not there." ^[16] The County notes that "Section 278.02 requires specificity in the Petition when defining the land involved." ^[17] According to the County, Bern's Petition does not satisfy this standard:

Nowhere in the Original Petition does [Bern] claim an interest in a project containing 38 parcels, a project known as Georgetown Park, or even a project larger than the four parcels named. Instead, the language of the Petition states that it is only for the four described parcels, and that these four parcels are what constitute the "single project." [^18]

The County argues that-rather than identifying the 34 interior parcels-the Petition excludes them by negative implication "[B]y clearly defining the four parcels, the Original Petition effectively excludes those parcels that are not named." ^[19]

Second, the County contends that Bern's failure to identify the interior parcels in the Petition deprives us of jurisdiction:^[20]

[E]xpansion of the scope of the Original Petition by including additional parcels after the filing deadline must be denied. Allowing the addition of additional land to the Petition after the deadline

...