Pamiko Properties, LLC v. County of Hannepin
| Decision Date | 11 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | 27-CV-11-10139 |
| Parties | PAMIKO PROPERTIES, LLC, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Respondent. |
| Court | Tax Court of Minnesota |
The above-captioned matter came before The Honorable Thomas G Haluska, Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on Hennepin County's motion for summary judgment.
Douglass E. Turner, Attorney at Law, represented petitioner Pamiko Properties, LLC.
Jane N.B. Holzer, Assistant County Attorney, represented respondent Hennepin County.
ORDER FOR DISMISSAL
The court, having reviewed the submissions of the parties, having heard the arguments of the parties, and deeming itself fully advised on the premises, now makes the following:
1. The petition of Pamiko Properties, LLC, be, and the same is dismissed with prejudice.
2. The documents filed by Mr. Koenig on December 23 and December 27, 2013, are hereby stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED. THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
MEMORANDUMThis matter is here on respondent Hennepin County's motion for summary judgment. The County seeks dismissal of the petition because petitioner Pamiko Properties, LLC, admitted it had no interest in any of the subject properties. We grant the County's motion and dismiss the petition.
Petitioner timely filed a petition under Minn.Stat. ch. 278 (2012) challenging the January 2, 2010 assessed value of 38 parcels of land in Hennepin County.[1] On June 12, 2012, the County served petitioner with requests for admissions pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.01[2] For each of the 38 subject properties, petitioner was required to admit or deny that it had no interest in each property on (1) the assessment date of January 2, 2010, and (2) the petition filing date of April 29, 2011.[3] Petitioner did not respond to the County's requests for admissions. Where a party serves a request for admission, “[t]he 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 or objection addressed to the matter....”[4] Accordingly, through its failure to respond, petitioner admitted that it had no interest in any of the 38 properties as of either the assessment date or the petition filing date.[5]
The County now brings this motion for summary judgment, [6] seeking dismissal of the petition based on petitioner's admission that it had no interest in the subject properties.[7] Petitioner did not file a response to the County's motion, but did appear at the December 11, 2013 summary judgment hearing. Petitioner did not deny that it had no interest in any of the subject properties, but alleged that it was the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding and, consequently, these proceedings were subject to a stay with respect to some or all of the parcels at issue. Petitioner did not identify which parcels were included in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Petitioner, without objection by the County, asked leave to file documentation supporting its claim. Accordingly, we issued an order on December 11, 2013, stating:
Petitioner shall, by December 26, 2013, file with this court and serve upon respondent a memorandum together with any documents that the petitioner believes supports its position that some or all of the parcels that is the subject of this proceeding are subject to a bankruptcy proceeding. Any filing shall be accompanied by an affidavit made in conformance with rule 56.05.[8]
Petitioner filed nothing in response to our December 11, 2013 order.[9] On January 16, 2014, the County filed a memorandum responding to the arguments made by petitioner at the summary judgment hearing.
Summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, the record in the case, and any supporting affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.[10] The purpose of summary judgment is to secure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of an action-by allowing a court to dispose of an action on the merits if there is no genuine dispute regarding the material facts, and a party is entitled to judgment under the law applicable to such facts.”[11]
The County alleges that petitioner lacks standing to bring the petition. A petition may be filed by “[a]ny person having ... any estate, right, title, or interest in or lien upon any parcel of land....”[12] Petitioner, through its failure to respond to the County's requests for admissions, has admitted that it has no interest in any of the subject properties.[13] Petitioner has not made any argument, either by written memorandum or orally at the dismissal motion, that it has an interest in any of the subject properties.[14] Therefore, petitioner lacks standing to challenge the assessed values of these properties and we grant the County's motion to dismiss the petition.
Petitioner did not file a written response to the County's summary judgment motion. During the December 11, 2013 summary judgment hearing, petitioner asserted that these proceedings were subject to a stay with respect to some or all of the subject parcels as a result of a bankruptcy proceeding. We allowed petitioner until December 26, 2013, to support its assertion.[15] Petitioner has not provided any proof that either it or any of the subject parcels is subject to a bankruptcy proceeding.[16] Therefore, petitioner's argument fails.
(Emphasis added.) Thus, a bankruptcy filing stays any “action or proceeding against the debtor.”[17] However, a tax petition is a proceeding initiated by petitioner, not against petitioner.[18] Therefore, we conclude that even if petitioner had provided documentation of the bankruptcy, this proceeding would not be subject to the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1)[19]
---------
Notes:
[1] The County's Requests for Admissions incorrectly reference a property address of 1918 18th Ave. N. Holzer Aff. (Oct. 31, 2013) ¶ 3, Ex. B. The correct address is 1318 18th Ave. N.; however, the County did provide the correct PID in its Requests for Admissions. Id. Therefore, it is clear which property the County is referencing.
[3] Id.
[5] Id.; Holzer Aff. (Oct. 31, 2013) 13, Ex. B.
[6] Not. Mot. Mot. Summ. J. (Oct. 31, 2013).
[7] Holzer Aff. (Oct. 31, 2013) ¶ 3, Ex. B. Petitioner has not made any property tax payments on any of the 38 subject properties for the 2010 (pay 2011) tax year. Tule Aff. (Oct. 31, 2013) ¶¶ 2-4.
[8] Order (Dec. 11, 2013) 2, ¶ 1.
[9] Mr. Paul Koenig filed documents in this court on behalf of petitioner on December 23 and December 27, 2013. Petitioner, an LLC, is represented by Douglass E. Turner of Hanbery & Carney, P.A., the attorney of record. In addition, no substitution of counsel has been filed with the court, Mr. Koenig does not appear to be a licensed attorney in Minnesota, and Mr. Koenig has not shown how he would otherwise have the legal ability to represent the petitioner, Pamiko Properties, LLC. In any event, the submissions by Mr. Koenig did not comply with our December 11, 2013 order or the requirements of Minn. R. Civ. P. 56. For all these reasons, Mr. Koenig's submissions are stricken.
[11] DLH, 566 N.W.2d at 69 (citing In re Estate of Bush, 302 Minn. 188, 211, 224 N.W.2d 489, 503 (1974)); see also Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 485, 70 N.W.2d 351, 353 (1955) (“The salutary purpose and useful function of summary judgment proceedings as a means of securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action....”).
[12] Minn.Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(a) (2012)
[14] The term “interest” collectively includes the terms “estate, ” “right, ” and “title.” See 2 Edward Coke, The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England; 345 n. (1823) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial