Mendota Mall Associates v. County of Dakota
Can I rely on this case?
Yes — no negative treatment found
- —
Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.
Mendota Mall Associates v. County of Dakota
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Certiorari was granted to review the decision of the tax court dismissing the relator’s petition challenging the assessed value of relator’s property for property tax purposes. The tax court dismissed the petition for failure of relator to provide income and expense data to the county within 60 days of filing the petition, as required by Minn.Stat. section 278.05, subd. 6(a) (1996).
Last year in BFW Co. v. County of Ramsey, 566 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. 1997), we rejected an argument based upon similar facts. There we said that the plain language of the statute required the petitioner “to provide all information within its possession, even though the petitioner deems certain portions of that information to be incomplete or not fully accurate.” Id. at 705. Our holding in that case is dispositive of this matter and therefore we affirm the decision of the tax court.
Affirmed.
. Minnesota Statute section 278.05, subd. 6(a) (1996) provides that:
Concurring Opinion
(concurring specially).
I concur with the result reached by the majority based on BFW Co. v. County of
*350 income and expense figures, verified net renta-ble areas, and anticipated income and expenses, for income-producing property must be provided to the county assessor within 60 days after the petition has been filed under this chapter. Failure to provide the information 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.
Concurring Opinion
(concurring specially).
I join in the special concurrence of Justice Gilbert.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES, Relator, v. COUNTY OF DAKOTA, Respondent
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published