223.387
Description of real property; effect of error in name of owner. In levying, collecting and
enforcing assessments for local improvement, the following shall apply:
(1) Real property
may be described by giving the subdivision according to the United States
survey when coincident with the boundaries thereof, or by lots, blocks and
addition names, or by giving the boundaries thereof by metes and bounds, or by
reference to the book and page of any public record of the county where the
description may be found, or by designation of tax lot number referring to a
record kept by the assessor of descriptions of real properties of the county,
which record shall constitute a public record, or in any other manner as to
cause the description to be capable of being made certain. Initial letters,
abbreviations, figures, fractions and exponents, to designate the township,
range, section, or part of a section, or the number of any lot or block or part
thereof, or any distance, course, bearing or direction, may be employed in any
description of real property.
(2) If the owner
of any land is unknown, the land may be assessed to “unknown owner,” or “unknown
owners.” If the property is correctly described, no final assessment shall be
invalidated by a mistake in the name of the owner of the real property assessed
or by the omission of the name of the owner or the entry of a name other than
that of the true owner. Where the name of the true owner, or the owner of
record, of any parcel of real property is given, the final assessment shall not
be held invalid on account of any error or irregularity in the description if
the description would be sufficient in a deed of conveyance from the owner, or
is such that, in a suit to enforce a contract to convey, employing such
description a court of equity would hold it to be good and sufficient.
(3) Any
description of real property which conforms substantially to the requirements
of this section shall be a sufficient description in all proceedings of
assessment relating or leading to a final assessment for a local improvement,
foreclosure and sale of delinquent assessments, and in any other proceeding
related to or connected with levying, collecting and enforcing final
assessments for special benefits to the property. [1959 c.219 §1; 1965 c.282 §4;
1971 c.198 §1; 1991 c.902 §36]
Notes of Decisions
Boyle v. City of Bend, 380 P.2d 625 (Or. 1963).
· cites it 2× “Defendant argued that by the very terms of Oregon Laws 1959, ch 219 (ORS 223.387 to 223.399) ORS 223.397 is inapplicable.”
Parker v. City of Albany, 144 P.3d 976 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“401 provides that: “[notwithstanding any of the provisions of ORS 223.387 to 223.399, owners of any property against which an assessment for local improvements has been imposed may seek review thereof under the provisions of ORS 34.”
Sch. Dist. No. 3J v. City of Wilsonville, 742 P.2d 59 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “After hearing testimony and reviewing engineering reports, and pursuant to ORS 223.387 et seq, the city council formed LID No.”
Wing v. City of Eugene, 437 P.2d 836 (Or. 1968).
“Procedure for levying assessments for local improvements is in ORS 223.387 through 223.399. Reassessment procedure is in ORS 223.”
Aloha Sanitary Dist. v. Wilkens, 420 P.2d 74 (Or. 1966).
“As we have pointed out, under ORS 223.387 et seq. cities are authorized to-make assessments prior to construction.”
Collins v. Rathbun, 604 P.2d 441 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“That being so, Ordinance 212 could not have established a parking district within the meaning of ORS 223.387 et seq. Defendants do not contend otherwise in their briefs.”
State v. Vickery, 702 P.2d 1070 (Or. 1985).
“Both parties agree that if the nuisance abatement assessment were considered a local improvement, ORS 223.387, and bonded under ORS 223.205 to ORS 223.”
Bennet v. City of Oceanlake, 430 P.2d 1004 (Or. 1967).
· cites it 2× “From a decree of the circuit court declaring the liens void for failure to comply with ORS 223.387 to ORS 223.399 the city appeals.”
McKenney v. City of Lake Oswego, 569 P.2d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“ORS 223.387 et seq specifies the general procedures for levying assessments to pay for city public improvements.”
Brown v. City of Salem, 444 P.2d 936 (Or. 1968).
“The procedural provisions of ORS 223.387 to 223.399 shall apply only where the city charter or ordinance does not specify otherwise *159 If the city by charter or ordinance had enacted substitute provisions for the second notice mentioned above the question would be raised (1)…”
Kozak v. City of Bend, 217 P.3d 1118 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“401 applies to review of an imposed assessment and not to the creation of a local district.”
Aldahl v. City of Corvallis, 560 P.2d 678 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“See generally ORS 223.387 through 223.485. Corvallis City Ordinance 71-13, relating to local improvements, provides in Section 5 that: "Within five days after the engineering report [on a proposed improvement district] and map have been filed, the City Recorder shall make…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.