Menu
Tax Notes logo

Minnesota Tax Court: Deadline Extension Applies to Property Tax Petition

Dated Jan. 18, 2022

Citations: WMH Prop. Owner LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin; File No. 27-CV-20-6274; File No. 27-CV-21-4306

SUMMARY BY TAX ANALYSTS

The Minnesota Tax Court held in WMH Property Owner LLC v. County of Hennepin that state district and appellate court deadlines “broadly suspended” by the state legislature in response to COVID-19 (H.F. 4556 and H.F. 114) should be applied to property tax petitions filed in state district court during the specified time period.

WMH Property Owner LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
County of Hennepin,
Respondent.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
TAX COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
REGULAR DIVISION

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION TO AMEND AND
CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS

Filed: September 9, 2021

This matter came before the Honorable Bradford S. Delapena, Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on petitioner's motion for leave to amend its property tax petition.

Gary C. Eidson and Colin M. Bruns, Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A., represent petitioner WMH Property Owner LLC (“WMH”).

Shannon M. Harmon, Assistant County Attorney, represents respondent Hennepin County.

WMH moves for leave to amend its property tax petition, which misidentified the subject property. The County objects that because WMH seeks to amend after the statutory deadline for filing new actions, the proposed amendment amounts to the filing of a new and untimely petition.

The County thus argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the amended petition.

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

ORDER

1. Petitioner's motion for leave to amend its petition is denied as moot.

2. The case is consolidated with File No. 27-CV-21-4306.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

Bradford S. Delapena, Judge
MINNESOTA TAX COURT

DATED: September 9, 2021

MEMORANDUM

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner WMH filed a property tax petition on April 27, 2020, challenging the 2019 assessment for property taxes payable in 2020 for a property located in Hennepin County.1 WMH avers that it attached the incorrect property tax statement to its petition, and thus misidentified the subject property.2 Although WMH intended to attach a statement for 523 8th Street South, Minneapolis (the “Minneapolis Property”), it instead attached one for 7901 34th Avenue South, Bloomington (the “Bloomington Property”).3

WMH learned of its error on June 9, 2020, when the Hennepin County Attorney's Office informed counsel for WMH that there appeared to be a double filing for the Bloomington Property4. Recognizing its mistake, WMH sent the County a property tax statement for the Minneapolis Property and sought the County's consent to amend its petition.5 Receiving no response, WMH filed an amended petition on June 29, 2020 (unaccompanied by a motion for leave to amend).6 The County immediately wrote to counsel for WMH on July 2, 2020, stating its concern that the amendment was untimely, amounted to the filing of a new and untimely petition, and therefore presented a jurisdictional issue.7

These events occurred within the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the same period, the Minnesota legislature passed several laws extending statutory filing deadlines in response to the pandemic. The parties differ in their interpretations of whether those laws extended the relevant statutory filing deadlines for property tax petitions.

Although WMH learned that it had misidentified the subject property in June 2020 (when it filed the amended petition), it did not file a motion for leave to amend in this court until April 13, 2021, approximately nine months later.8 The court takes judicial notice that, only one day earlier, on April 12, 2021, WMH commenced a new district court action concerning pay-2020 taxes for the Minneapolis Property and pleading the same claims (overvaluation and unequal assessment) that are at issue in the present proceeding.9 The County did not oppose WMH's motion to amend its original petition, other than to reiterate the jurisdictional concerns it had expressed to WMH nine months earlier.10

We heard WMH's motion to amend on May 19, 2021, then requested supplemental briefing on whether the instant matter is properly considered a tax court or a district court proceeding for purposes of determining the applicable statutory filing deadline.11 The parties submitted their supplemental briefs on June 9, 2021.12

II. GOVERNING LAW

A. Section 278 Proceedings

Minnesota Statutes chapter 278 allows taxpayers to challenge a property tax assessments. Minn. Stat. ch. 278 (2020). For petitions asserting grounds enumerated in the statute, such as unequal assessment or overvaluation, the statute provides the “exclusive means” for bringing such a challenge. Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'Connor, 633 N.W.2d 517, 523 (Minn. 2001). Nevertheless, the statute gives the taxpayer an election as to forum: The taxpayer may “have the validity of the claim, defense, or objection determined [1] by the district court of the county in which the tax is levied or [2] by the Tax Court.” Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(a); see also Walmart Inc. v. Winona Cnty., Nos. A19-1877 & A19-1878, ___ N.W. 2d ___, ___, 2021 WL 3641445, at *8 (Minn. Aug. 18, 2021) (“Although the statute permits taxpayers to bring their claims in tax court, it also provides taxpayers with the option of proceeding in district court.”).

Regardless of the forum chosen, a chapter 278 petition must be filed on or before April 30 of the year in which the tax becomes payable. Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(c). Failure to timely file and serve a petition deprives the tax court of jurisdiction to hear the matter. Kmart Corp. v. Cnty. of Clay, 711 N.W.2d 485, 488-90 (Minn. 2006); see also Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis, 823 N.W.2d 638, 646 (Minn. 2012) (noting that “[c]hapter 278 petitions have a strict time limit”).

Additionally, chapter 278 requires 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.

B. Motions to Amend

The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure “govern the procedures in the Tax Court, where practicable.” Minn. Stat. § 271.06, subd. 7 (2020). Generally, the amendment of pleadings in tax court is governed by Rule 15, see, e.g., Marlow Timberland, LLC v. Cnty. of Lake, 800 N.W.2d 637, 639-40 (Minn. 2011), which provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01. Due to the jurisdictional nature of the time limitation for filing a chapter 278 petition, however, this court has held that it does not have jurisdiction to hear amended claims that seek to add new or different parcels of property to the original petition when those amendments are made after the statutory filing deadline. Jim Bern Co. v. Cnty. of Ramsey, No. 62-CV-17-2723, 2018 WL 911206, at *5 (Minn. T.C. Jan. 9, 2018) (“We conclude, therefore, that this court cannot acquire jurisdiction over new claims by means of an amendment after the statutory filing deadline.”); see also CW Capital Asset Mgmt.— Northtown Ctr. v. Cnty. of Anoka, No. 02-CV-19-2185, 2021 WL 358643, at *7 (Minn. T.C. Jan. 29, 2021) (noting that claims “asserted for the first time after the expiration of the petition deadline in section 278.01, subdivision 1(c) are permanently time-barred, and the relation back principle applicable to amendments in Rule 15.03 does not apply to time-barred claims”).13

C. Extension of Filing Deadlines Due to COVID-19

The Minnesota legislature and governor responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by passing several laws that extended deadlines for district court and tax court proceedings. The governor declared a peacetime emergency on March 13, 2020.14 Approximately two weeks later, on March 28, 2020, the legislature extended the annual April 30 filing deadline for chapter 278 petitions by enacting Session Law 71:

Notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section 278.01, subdivision 1, paragraph (c), or any other law to the contrary, for property taxes payable in 2020 only, a petitioner filing a real or personal property tax petition under Minnesota Statutes, section 278.01, shall have until May 30, 2020, to file copies of the petition, with proof of service, in the office of the court administrator of the district court.

Act of Mar. 28, 2020, ch. 71, art. 2, § 18, 2020 Minn. Laws 17, 38 (“Session Law 71”).

A few weeks later, on April 15, 2020, the legislature enacted Session Law 74, which extended certain statutory deadlines as follows:

(a) The running of deadlines imposed by statutes governing proceedings in the district and appellate courts, including any statutes of limitations or other time periods prescribed by statute, is suspended during the peacetime emergency declared on March 13, 2020, in governor's Executive Order 20-01 and any extensions authorized under Minnesota Statutes, section 12.31, subdivision 2, and for 60 days after the end of the peacetime emergency declaration[.]

(b) This section expires 60 days after the end of the peacetime emergency declaration described in paragraph (a) or February 15, 2021, whichever is earlier.

Act of Apr. 15, 2020, ch. 74, art. 1, § 16, 2020 Minn. Laws 55, 66 (“Session Law 74”). Finally, early in 2021, the legislature further extended the February 15, 2021 deadline:

Deadlines imposed by statutes governing proceedings in the district and appellate courts, including any statutes of limitations or other time periods prescribed by statute, shall not expire from the beginning of the peacetime emergency declared on March 13, 2020, in governor's Executive Order 20-01 through April 15, 2021.

Act of Feb. 12, 2021, ch. 3, § 1 (“Session Law 3”).

III. ANALYSIS

The County objects that “it is unclear whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding the Amended Petition which purports to add a property not identified in the Petition after the statutory [filing] deadline.”15 The County would not be prejudiced by the amendment and, indeed, has stated that “if the [filing] deadline was extended to April 15, 2021, it is true that the County does not object to the amendment.”16

The parties agree that a chapter 278 petition must clearly identify the land at issue, see Minn. Stat. § 278.02, and that WMH failed to fulfill this requirement when it attached an incorrect property tax statement to its original petition. Furthermore, WMH does not dispute that its amended petition constitutes a new claim over which the “court cannot acquire jurisdiction . . . by means of an amendment after the statutory filing deadline.” Jim Bern, 2018 WL 911206, at *5. The parties differ, however, in their interpretation of whether WMH filed its amended petition after the statutory filing deadline. Resolution of this question requires the court to determine, first, whether WMH filed the present case in district court or tax court and, second, the effect on the controlling statutory filing deadline of the previously noted legislative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A. The Instant Action Is a Tax Court Proceeding

The parties disagree concerning proper characterization of the current proceeding. WMH argues that because it originally filed its petition with the district court administrator, the case is therefore a district court proceeding (or at least that it was a district court proceeding at the time of filing, and only subsequently became a tax court proceeding upon transfer to the tax court).17 The County maintains that the case was filed as a tax court proceeding (even though it was filed with the district court administrator); that it has always been a tax court proceeding; and that the district court administrator operated in a merely administrative capacity when forwarding the case to the tax court.18 We agree with the County.

Minnesota Statutes chapter 278 provides taxpayers with a choice of forum in which to litigate their claims. Taxpayers “may have the validity of the claim, defense, or objection determined by the district court of the county in which the tax is levied or by the Tax Court[.]” Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(a) (emphasis added); see also Wulff v. Tax Ct. of Appeals, 288 N.W.2d 221, 225 (Minn. 1979) (“[T]he taxpayer always has the option to file in district court.”). Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court has suggested that this forum election is “perhaps the saving feature of th[e] statutory scheme” allowing the tax court — an Executive Branch agency — to adjudicate tax claims. Wulff, 288 N.W.2d at 225.

Minnesota Statutes chapter 271, which creates the tax court and defines its jurisdiction, reinforces the distinction between tax court and district court cases. Minn. Stat. ch. 271 (2020). The statute grants the tax court statewide jurisdiction “in those cases that have been appealed to the Tax Court and in any case that has been transferred by the district court to the Tax Court.” Minn. Stat. § 271.01, subd. 5 (emphasis added). Chapter 271 also specifies that “[f]iling fees and library fees deposited with the court administrator of district court [1] in the capacity of court administrator of the Tax Court and [2] in cases originally commenced in district court and transferred to the Tax Court shall be retained by the court administrator of district court.” Minn. Stat. § 271.02.

Although taxpayers have a choice of forum, they do not have a choice about where to file property tax petitions. “For all counties, the petitioner must file the copies [of the petition] with proof of service, in the office of the court administrator of the district court[.]” Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(c). The statute applies regardless of whether a taxpayer elects to appeal to the tax court or the district court. Accordingly, the legislature mandated that “[t]he Tax Court shall prescribe a filing system so that [a] . . . petition filed with the district court administrator acting as court administrator of the Tax Court is forwarded to the Tax Court administrator.” Minn. Stat. § 271.06, subd. 2; see also Minn. Stat. § 271.17 (“The Tax Court administrator and the district court administrators shall be the filing officers and custodians of the books, files, and records of the Tax Court.”). When a taxpayer files a tax court petition, the district court administrator acts in a merely administrative capacity — as a stand-in for the tax court administrator. See Minn. Stat. § 271.02 (“The court administrator of district court in each county shall be the court administrator of the Tax Court in that county. . . .The court administrator of the Tax Court in each county shall be subject to the supervision of the administrator in Tax Court matters.”). Contrary to WMH's suggestion, the act of filing a petition with the district court administrator does not determine whether an action is a tax court or district court matter.

Instead, the form and content of the taxpayer's petition determine whether the case is a tax court or district court proceeding. The taxpayer is free to appeal to either the tax court or district court, but must specify which forum they have elected. See Minn. R. 8610.0050 (2019) (providing guidance on the proper form for property tax petitions and giving an example of a caption where either “DISTRICT OR TAX” may be specified under “COURT”). This court has previously ruled that a petitioner filed their case in tax court when using Minnesota Tax Court Form 7, see Johnson v. Cnty. of Hennepin, No. 27-CV-14-7031, 2015 WL 2329349, at *2 (Minn. T.C. May 12, 2015), and when specifying “TAX COURT” rather than “DISTRICT COURT” in the petition caption, see Menard, Inc. (Oakdale) v. Cnty. of Washington, No. 82-CV-15-2042 et al., 2018 WL 3298007, at *2 (Minn. T.C. June 27, 2018) (“Put simply, had Menard wanted its claims heard by the Washington County District Court, it should have filed district court actions, not tax court petitions.”).19

Here, WMH filed its petition using Minnesota Tax Court Form 7.20 The instructions for Form 7 state: “You must file the original Petition with any attachments, proof of service and filing fee with the Court Administrator's Office of the District Court in the County where your property is located[.]”21 WMH complied with these instructions by filing its case with the district court administrator in the Fourth Judicial District. Furthermore, by checking a box on Form 7, WMH specified that the “Tax Court Division Being Appealed to” was the “Regular Division.”22 For these reasons, WMH's original petition commenced a tax court proceeding. Like all chapter 278 appeals to tax court, WMH's petition was processed by the district court administrator and forwarded to the tax court. Minn. Stat. § 271.06, subd. 2.23

We note that WMH's own actions demonstrate its clear understanding of the difference between a tax court and a district court proceeding. Only one day before WMH moved to amend its original tax court petition, it filed a new district court action concerning pay-2020 taxes for the Minneapolis Property24. The new petition is captioned “DISTRICT COURT” and contains a footnote that reads:

This Petition is being filed concurrently with a motion to amend a previously-filed petition in a separate matter bearing Court File No. 27-CV-20-6274. Because that previously-filed petition erroneously identified the property at issue, Petitioner is filing this Petition to broadly preserve its ability to contest the tax assessment at issue. Should the motion to amend in the separate matter be granted, Petitioner intends to either voluntarily dismiss this action or move to consolidate this action with the 27-CV-20-6274 matter.25

For all the foregoing reasons, we reject WMH's contention that its original petition commenced a district court action.

Our acknowledgement that both tax court and district court petitions must be filed with the district court administrator will, according to WMH, “eviscerate the distinction between filing in the district court and filing in th[e] tax court that was so crucial to the Supreme Court in upholding the constitutionality of the statutes governing the operation of the Tax Court in Wulff.”26 We disagree.Although a taxpayer must file any property tax petition with the district court administrator, the taxpayer retains the choice of forum expressly approved in Wulff.

WMH further contends that the court's acknowledgement will “impermissibly limit[ ] the effect of filing a tax petition in the district court (invoking that court's general jurisdiction) to be coextensive with filing the petition in tax court (invoking that court's limited jurisdiction), which would deprive taxpayers of their right to assert claims in the district court.” 27 But our recognition that all chapter 278 petitions must be filed with district court administrators in no way deprives petitioners of the right to file district court actions.28 And although the election has jurisdictional consequences, the Minnesota Supreme Court has largely ameliorated them.

The tax court's status as an independent Executive Branch agency with its jurisdiction limited to tax matters entails that the court lacks original jurisdiction over constitutional issues. Matter of McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910, 919 (Minn. 1980). Under controlling precedent, however, the tax court can acquire jurisdiction to hear constitutional issues in two ways: (1) “[W]hen, in the first instance the constitutional issue is raised in the district court before the case is transferred to the tax court,” Guilliams v. Comm'r of Revenue, 299 N.W.2d 138, 139 n.1 (Minn. 1980); see also McCannel, 301 N.W.2d at 919 (“The tax court may acquire jurisdiction in the first instance through transfers of cases from the district court, which does have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of legislative acts.”); and (2) through a procedure known as the “Erie shuffle”:

If any party raises a constitutional issue, the tax court should stay the proceedings and refer the constitutional question to the district court. The district court may either decide the constitutional issue or refer the matter back to the tax court which will then have subject matter jurisdiction to rule initially on the constitutional issue.

Erie Mining Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 343 N.W.2d 261, 264 (Minn. 1984).29 Acknowledging chapter 278's forum election and detailing the mechanics of its implementation does not, as WMH suggests, “deprive taxpayers of their right to assert claims in the district court.”30 To the contrary, it assists taxpayers by giving them a clearer understanding of their statutory rights and the consequences of their respective options.

Having determined that WMH seeks to amend a tax court petition, we now turn to the effect that the legislative responses to COVID-19 had on deadlines in tax court proceedings.

B. Effect of COVID-19 Legislative Responses on Chapter 278 Filing Deadlines

The parties agree that Session Law 71 extended the filing deadline for chapter 278 petitions — whether in district or tax court — until May 30, 2020, thus allowing taxpayers an extra month to file petitions concerning property taxes payable in 2020. The parties disagree, however, about the meaning and effect of Session Law 74, which was enacted a few weeks later, and which suspended “[t]he running of deadlines imposed by statutes governing proceedings in the district and appellate courts, including any statutes of limitations or other time periods prescribed by statute[.]” Act of Apr. 15, 2020, ch. 74, art. 1, § 16. Using similar language, Session Law 3 later extended the same deadlines until April 15, 2021. Act of Feb. 12, 2021, ch. 3, § 1.31

There are three plausible interpretations concerning how Session Law 74 affected pay-2020 chapter 278 proceedings: (1) it had no effect on them, leaving unchanged the May 30, 2020 filing deadline for both district court and tax court cases; (2) it extended the filing deadline for district court cases, but not for tax court cases; or (3) it extended the filing deadline for both district court and tax court cases.

The County urges the first interpretation. According to the County, the only extension of the filing deadline for pay-2020 chapter 278 petitions was effected by the passage of Session Law 71, which extended the annual April 30 deadline to May 30, 2021.32 In support of this view, the County first points to the following Minnesota law of statutory construction:

When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. If the conflict between the two provisions be irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session and it shall be the manifest intention of the legislature that such general provision shall prevail.33

Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2020).Reasoning that Session Law 71 refers specifically to chapter 278 petitions for property taxes payable in 2020, the County argues that provisions of Session Law 71 should supersede the more general provisions of Session Law 74, which broadly refer to district and appellate court proceedings.34 We are not persuaded.

The County's arguments would be well taken had legislature had passed Session Laws 71 and 74 concurrently. Session Law 71 was passed on March 28, 2020, however, only two weeks after Governor Walz declared a peacetime emergency35 and only days after the governor issued a stay-at-home order for Minnesotans.36 The law extended by one month the approaching deadline for challenging pay-2020 property taxes.

Over two weeks later, on April 15, 2020, the legislature enacted Session Law 74. By this time, it was more apparent that the pandemic posed a long-term challenge37. Consequently, Session Law 74 broadly suspended “[t]he running of deadlines imposed by statutes governing proceedings in the district and appellate courts, including any statutes of limitations or other time periods prescribed by statute” until “60 days after the end of the peacetime emergency” or, as an outer limit, February 15, 2021. Act of Apr. 15, 2020, ch. 74, art. 1, § 16. The text includes no exceptions for specific kinds of district court actions (such as chapter 278 petitions).38 By virtue of its plain meaning, therefore, Session Law 74 suspends the running of all deadlines in district court and appellate court proceedings, including those based on chapter 278.

In addition, the County's cited canon does not apply. First, we perceive no irreconcilable conflict between the earlier and later provisions. Session Law 71 extended a particular statutory filing deadline for one month, whereas Session Law 74 later extended all statutory filing deadlines for approximately 10 months. Session Law 74 simply embraced within its scope the earlier extension effected by Session Law 71. In addition, considering the rapidly evolving responses to the pandemic, the general provisions of Session Law 74 are most sensibly viewed as superseding the earlier legislative enactment, even though that enactment addressed one specific type of proceeding. See Murphy v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Cook Cnty., 74 Minn. 28, 30, 76 N.W. 951, 952 (1898) (concluding that a bonding provision passed on April 19, 1895, superseded a bonding provision passed on April 5, 1895).

The County's second argument against applying Session Law 74 to chapter 278 proceedings is that Session Law 71 proclaims that it should be applied “[n]otwithstanding . . . any other law to the contrary[.]”39 Act of Mar. 28, 2020, ch. 71, art. 2, § 18. We think, however, that this provision must be understood as referring to other laws then in existence. A legislature may not bind its successors with ordinary legislation. Minnesota Ed. Ass'n v. State, 282 N.W.2d 915, 919 (Minn. 1979) (“[T]he Legislature is able to bind all other groups except a subsequent legislature[.]”); League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie, 819 N.W.2d 636, 673 (Minn. 2012) (Anderson, Paul H., J, dissenting) (“[A] legislature cannot bind its successors with an ordinary legislative act[.]”). In addition, a subsequent legislature is free to revise the laws on a particular subject by setting up a “general or exclusive system covering the entire subject matter of a former law.” Minn. Stat. § 645.39 (2020). For the foregoing reasons, we reject the County's argument that Session Law 71 effected the only extension of the filing deadline for pay-2020 chapter 278 petitions, instead concluding that Session Law 74 additionally extended the filing deadline for chapter 278 proceedings (at least for district court actions).

WMH advances the third interpretation, reading Session Law 74 as extending deadlines for all chapter 278 proceedings, whether filed in the district court or tax court.40 WMH emphasizes that the text of Session Law 74 refers not to “deadlines governing proceedings in the district courts” but, instead, to “deadlines imposed by statutes governing proceedings in the district . . . courts[.]”41 Act of Apr. 15, 2020, ch. 74, art. 1, § 16 (emphasis added). Literally applying this language, WMH argues that chapter 278 is a statute governing proceedings in the district court — even though it also governs proceedings in the tax court.42 Therefore, WMH rephrases Session Law 74 as follows: “[T]he running of deadlines imposed by [chapter 278 and other] statutes governing proceedings in the district . . . courts . . . is suspended during the peacetime emergency.”43 Under WMH's interpretation, tax court proceedings under chapter 278 fall within the ambit of the deadline extension created by Session Law 74.

Having determined that Session Law 74 extended the deadline for chapter 278 proceedings in district court, we need not select between the second and third interpretations to determine whether Session Law 74 also extended the deadline for chapter 278 proceedings in the tax court.44 As previously noted, WMH simultaneously filed two separate documents intended to correct its misidentification of the subject property in its original petition: (1) a motion in this court to amend the original petition to pertain to the Minneapolis Property; and (2) an independent petition in district court pertaining to the Minneapolis Property. The latter petition has now been transferred to the tax court. By filing this separate district court action, WMH successfully availed itself of Session Law 74's deadline extension for district court proceedings. Regardless of whether Session Law 74 additionally extended the deadlines for tax court proceedings, the tax court has jurisdiction over WMH's challenge to pay-2020 taxes for the Minneapolis Property.

B.S.D.

FOOTNOTES

1 Petition (filed Apr. 27, 2020).

2 Pet'r's Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 2 (filed Apr. 13, 2021).

3 Pet'r's Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 1-2.

4 Pet'r's Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 2.

5 Pet'r's Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 3.

6 Pet'r's Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 3; Amended Petition (filed June 29, 2020).

7 Pet'r's Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 3.

8 Pet'r's Notice Mot. & Mot. Amend (filed Apr. 13, 2021).

9 Petition, WMH Prop. Owner LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, No. 27-CV-21-4306 (Minn. Dist. Ct. filed Apr. 12, 2021). WMH did not mention the newly filed district court action either in its briefing or at oral argument on its motion to amend. See Pet'r's Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend; Pet'r's Suppl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend (filed June 9, 2021); Tr. (May 19, 2021).

10 Resp't's Resp. Mot. Amend (filed May 12, 2021).

11 Tr. 29-33.

12 Letter from Shannon M. Harmon to Hon. Bradford Delapena (June 9, 2011) (“Harmon letter”); Pet'r's Suppl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend.

13 We have previously observed that strict statutory deadlines can result in outcomes that “appear unjust.” See Mays v. Comm'r of Revenue, No. 7279, 2001 WL 561335, at *2 (Minn. T.C. May 15, 2001); Williams v. Comm'r of Revenue, No. 9409-R, 2021 WL 1206480, at *1-2 (Minn. T.C. Mar. 26, 2021).

14 Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-01, Declaring a Peacetime Emergency and Coordinating Minnesota's Strategy to Protect Minnesotans from COVID-19 (Mar. 13, 2020).

15 Resp't's Resp. Mot. Amend 1-2.

16 Tr. 17.

17 Pet'r's Suppl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 2.

18 Harmon Letter 1-2.

19 Although the petition in Menard specified both “TAX COURT” and “TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT” in its caption, it nowhere specified “DISTRICT COURT” or otherwise requested that the petition be heard by a district court. See Petition, Menard, 2018 WL 3298007 (No. 82-CV-15-2042 et al.). This court found that “[i]n each of these cases, Menard appealed to this court.” Menard, 2018 WL 3298007, at *2.

20 Petition.

21 Petition.

22 Petition.

23 WMH cites several tax court cases to support the contention that it originally filed a district court proceeding, but these references are unpersuasive. WMH argues that it is similarly situated to the petitioner in Walmart Inc. v. Cnty. of Anoka, No. 02-CV-19-2198 et al., 2020 WL 3244118 (Minn. T.C. June 10, 2020), which originally filed a district court action, and dissimilarly situated to the petitioners in Johnson, 2015 WL 2329349, who originally filed a tax court case. WMH is mistaken on both counts.

In Walmart, the taxpayer captioned its petition “IN DISTRICT COURT,” specifically asked that the matter not be transferred to tax court, and requested a jury trial, a procedure not available in a tax court. Petition 1, 6, Walmart, 2020 WL 3244118 (No. 02-CV-19-2198 et al.); cf. Minn. Stat. § 271.06, subd. 6 (2020) (authorizing the tax court to “empanel an advisory jury”).

Johnson is even less helpful to WMH. In Johnson, the petitioners were subject to a district court order requiring them to obtain an attorney's signature before filing any new district court case. 2015 WL 2329349, at *1. Nevertheless, the tax court held that the petitioners' chapter 278 petition was not subject to the district court's order because the petitioners used “Minnesota Tax Court Form 7 and requested that the appeal be filed with the regular division of the tax court.” Id. at *2. This court determined that the petition was filed as a tax court proceeding, not a district court proceeding: “Because the Johnsons' petition was filed with the district court administrator acting in her capacity as the court administrator for the tax court, the restrictions expressed in [the district court judge's] order would not apply.” Id. WMH is exactly like the petitioners in Johnson. WMH also filled out Minnesota Tax Court Form 7, checked the box for the regular division of the tax court, and filed its petition with the district court administrator acting in their capacity as tax court administrator.

24 Petition, WMH Prop. Owner LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, No. 27-CV-21-4306 (Minn. Dist. Ct. filed Apr. 12, 2021).

25 Petition, 1 n.1, WMH Prop. Owner, No. 27-CV-21-4306.

26 Pet'r's Suppl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 8.

27 Pet'r's Suppl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 8.

28 The Hennepin County District Court currently has in place a standing order that provides: “[A]ll tax appeals with the Hennepin County District Court shall be transferred to the Minnesota Tax Court.” Decl. Gary Eidson, Ex. 9 (Apr. 13, 2021). WMH's real concern appears to be that the standing order effectively denies petitioners who file district court actions the opportunity to proceed in district court. See Tr. 32. This issue has been litigated in other cases. See, e.g., Walmart, 2020 WL 3244118, at *1, *3-5 (noting that, by means of a standing order, the district court had transferred numerous district court cases to tax court). The issue is not presented here, however, because WMH's original petition did not commence a district court action. Although district courts have long used standing orders to transfer cases to tax court, see Wulff, 288 N.W.2d at 222 (noting bulk transfer order), we agree that their use tends to obscure the distinction between (a) tax court cases administratively forwarded to the tax court, and (b) district court cases transferred to tax court in the exercise of the district court's discretion to do so. See Wulff, 288 N.W.2d at 225 (noting that “any transfer [of a district court action] to the Tax Court is discretionary with the district court”); see also F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Cnty. of Anoka, No. C5-91-5279, 1991 WL 149109, at *2 (Minn. T.C. July 26, 1991) (quoting transfer order providing that “said Petition was specifically reviewed regarding the issue of transfer to the Minnesota Tax Court”).

29 We note that an Erie shuffle is unnecessary for cases originally filed as district court actions. See Walmart, 2020 WL 3244118, at *7 (“Because the Pay-2019 Cases were all originally filed in the district court before transfer pursuant to the Standing Order, an Erie shuffle is not necessary to confer jurisdiction over constitutional issues in this court to the extent those issues arise under the tax laws of the state.”) (cleaned up).

30 Pet'r's Suppl. Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 8.

31 Accordingly, further references to Session Law 74 also apply to Session Law 3.

32 Resp't's Resp. Mot. Amend 2-4.

33 Resp't's Resp. Mot. Amend 3.

34 Resp't's Resp. Mot. Amend 3-4 (“To the extent provisions are in conflict, effect may easily be given to both by recognizing the earlier provision applies exclusively to property tax appeals for taxes payable in 2020, while the later provisions may apply generally to a variety of district court and appellate court matters.”).

35 Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-01.

36 Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-20, Directing Minnesotans to Stay at Home, at 2 (Mar. 25, 2020) (declaring that the stay-at-home order would go into effect “[b]eginning on Friday, March 27, 2020, at 11:59 pm”).

37 See Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-33, Extending Stay at Home Order and Temporary Closure of Bars, Restaurants, and Other Places of Public Accommodation, at 15 (Apr. 8, 2020) (extending the stay-at-home order through May 3, 2020); Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-35, Extending the COVID-19 Peacetime Emergency Declared in Executive Order 20-01, at 1-2 (Apr. 13, 2020) (extending the peacetime emergency through at least May 13, 2020, and declaring that the COVID-19 pandemic was an “unprecedented and rapidly evolving challenge”).

38 Session Law 74 instead contains the following provision:

Nothing in this paragraph prevents a court from holding a hearing, requiring an appearance, or issuing an order during the peacetime emergency if the judge determines that individual circumstances relevant to public safety, personal safety, or other emergency matters require action in a specific case.

Act of Apr. 15, 2020, ch. 74, art. 1, § 16. The statute thus makes a specific provision for emergency matters but does not otherwise carve out exceptions for categories of district court proceedings.

39 Resp't's Resp. Mot. Amend 2.

40 Pet'r's Mem. Supp. Mot. Amend 5-11; Tr. 5-8.

41 See Tr. 6.

42 Tr. 23-26.

43 See Tr. 6.

44 This court has previously ruled that, despite the extensions granted by the legislature in response to the pandemic, we “possess no authority to extend the deadlines found in Minnesota Statutes section 278.05, subdivision 6.” C&R Elton Hills, LLC v. Cnty. of Olmsted, No. 55-CV-20-3142, 2020 WL 7485197, at *3 (Minn. T.C. Dec. 10, 2020); Tinos LLC v. Cnty. of Olmsted, No. 55-CV-20-3148 et al., 2020 WL 7485179, at *3 (Minn. T.C. Dec. 10, 2020). These cases concerned the failure to timely disclose income and expense information as required by statute. See, e.g., C&R, 2020 WL 7485197, at *1. The court did not consider whether Session Law 74 extended the statutory filing deadline to appeal a case to the tax court in the first place.

END FOOTNOTES

Copy RID