Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234 (2026)

Correction of maximum assessed value; conditions; three percent limitation; filing deadline; appeals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      311.234 Correction of maximum assessed value; conditions; three percent limitation; filing deadline; appeals. (1)(a) The current owner of property or other person obligated to pay taxes imposed on property may petition the county assessor for a correction of the maximum assessed value of the property for the circumstances described in subsection (2) of this section.

      (b) The petitioner may seek the correction for the current tax year and for up to five tax years immediately prior to the current tax year.

      (2) The assessor shall correct the maximum assessed value of the property for each of the tax years to which the petition relates if, in the petition filed under this section, the petitioner demonstrates:

      (a) A difference between the actual square footage of the property as of the assessment date for the tax year and the square footage of the property as shown in the records of the assessor for the tax year.

      (b) That new property, or new improvements to property, added to the tax roll in a prior tax year did not exist as of the assessment date for that prior tax year or any subsequent tax year.

      (3)(a) A correction made under subsection (2)(a) of this section must be proportional to the change in the real market value for the tax year that is due to the correction of the square footage of the property.

      (b) A correction made under subsection (2)(b) of this section:

      (A) Must reflect, in a manner determined by the assessor, the removal of the new property or new improvements to property from the assessment and tax rolls as accepted by the assessor.

      (B) May not be made to the extent that the assessor finds that the new property or new improvements to property existed on the assessment date of a prior tax year and the petition is best construed as demonstrating a difference in the nature, extent or value of the new property or new improvements to property.

      (4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, a correction made under this section may not cause the maximum assessed value of the property to increase by more than three percent from the maximum assessed value of the property for the preceding tax year.

      (5) A petition filed under this section must be on the form and contain the information prescribed by the Department of Revenue and must be filed with the county assessor on or before December 31 of the current tax year.

      (6) A decision by the assessor pursuant to a petition filed under this section may be appealed under ORS 305.275. [2001 c.764 §2; 2007 c.516 §3; 2009 c.443 §4; 2015 c.39 §1; 2015 c.97 §1a; 2023 c.231 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Linstrom v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 223 (Or. T.C. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Linstrom v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 223 (Or. T.C. 2020). · cites it 10× “MAV correction for errors in square footage pursuant to ORS 311.234 Plaintiff claims that an error in the County’s recorded square footage for the Property, due to a failure to correctly take the high-water mark of the Siletz River into account, justifies a MAV reduction.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). · cites it 20× “3 ORS 311.234 was amended in 2015 to include new provisions creating a MAV correction for nonexistent property.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). · cites it 17× “205, and for a MAV correction under ORS 311.234. A. Property Valuation Appeals First Filed with Board of Property Tax Appeals Defendant maintains that Plaintiff may not appeal to this court because she was required to first appeal her valuation dispute to the board.”
Wynne v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2018). · cites it 16× “As we will see in the legislative history section, it appears that ORS 311.234 was amended to allow for a MAV correction in response to the result in Su.”
Constantino v. Jackson Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). · cites it 10× “) On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff submitted to Defendant an Application for Correction of Maximum Assessed Value under ORS 311.234. (Compl at 3.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed this appeal for the 2020-21 through 2023-24 tax years, citing the square footage error on the roll.”
Linstrom v. Lincoln Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2018). · cites it 9× “Plaintiff filed with Defendant an application under ORS 311.234 to correct errors in square footage of the land and FINAL DECISION TC-MD 180084N 7 improvements for the 2017-18 tax year.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). · cites it 9× “3 ORS 311.234(1) allows a property owner or other taxpayer to petition a county for a MAV correction.”
Willey v. Washington Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2026). · cites it 9× “The court considers whether the correction may be made under either ORS 311.234 or ORS 311.205.1 The court grants a motion for summary judgment if all the documents on file “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to…”
Naidj v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, Tc-Md 091268d (or.tax 9-13-2010) (Or. T.C. 2010). · cites it 15× “) Defendant-Washington County Assessor (Assessor) filed a response March 18, 2010, concluding that "the Assessor has no statutory authority to correct the MAV because no application was filed as required under ORS 311.234." (Assessor's Ltr at 4, Mar 18, 2010.”
Barnes v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). · cites it 5× “Here, Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that they petitioned Defendant using the form and process prescribed by ORS 311.234, so that statute provides no relief in this case.”
Danielson v. Lincoln Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2015). · cites it 6× “) Defendant wrote that “Plaintiff submitted an Application for Correction of Maximum Assessed Value Due to Error in Square Footage as provided by ORS 311.234[,]” but did not identify the date on which the application was filed.”
Norman v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, Tc-Md 100557c (or.tax 10-28-2010) (Or. T.C. 2010). · cites it 4× “234(2) (providing that corrections under ORS 311.234 are made to the assessor's office) and ORS 311.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(1): 4 cases
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “205, and for a MAV correction under ORS 311.234. A. Property Valuation Appeals First Filed with Board of Property Tax Appeals Defendant maintains that Plaintiff may not appeal to this court because she was required to first appeal her valuation dispute to the board.”
Naidj v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, Tc-Md 091268d (or.tax 9-13-2010) (Or. T.C. 2010). “) Defendant-Washington County Assessor (Assessor) filed a response March 18, 2010, concluding that "the Assessor has no statutory authority to correct the MAV because no application was filed as required under ORS 311.234." (Assessor's Ltr at 4, Mar 18, 2010.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “3 ORS 311.234(1) allows a property owner or other taxpayer to petition a county for a MAV correction.”
Constantino v. Jackson Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “) On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff submitted to Defendant an Application for Correction of Maximum Assessed Value under ORS 311.234. (Compl at 3.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed this appeal for the 2020-21 through 2023-24 tax years, citing the square footage error on the roll.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(1)(a): 1 case
Barnes v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “Here, Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that they petitioned Defendant using the form and process prescribed by ORS 311.234, so that statute provides no relief in this case.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(1)(b): 1 case
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “3 ORS 311.234 was amended in 2015 to include new provisions creating a MAV correction for nonexistent property.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(2): 7 cases
Linstrom v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 223 (Or. T.C. 2020). “MAV correction for errors in square footage pursuant to ORS 311.234 Plaintiff claims that an error in the County’s recorded square footage for the Property, due to a failure to correctly take the high-water mark of the Siletz River into account, justifies a MAV reduction.”
Wynne v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2018). “As we will see in the legislative history section, it appears that ORS 311.234 was amended to allow for a MAV correction in response to the result in Su.”
Hertig v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2012).
Norman v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, Tc-Md 100557c (or.tax 10-28-2010) (Or. T.C. 2010). “234(2) (providing that corrections under ORS 311.234 are made to the assessor's office) and ORS 311.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “3 ORS 311.234 was amended in 2015 to include new provisions creating a MAV correction for nonexistent property.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(2)(a): 3 cases
Linstrom v. Lincoln Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2018). “Plaintiff filed with Defendant an application under ORS 311.234 to correct errors in square footage of the land and FINAL DECISION TC-MD 180084N 7 improvements for the 2017-18 tax year.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “205, and for a MAV correction under ORS 311.234. A. Property Valuation Appeals First Filed with Board of Property Tax Appeals Defendant maintains that Plaintiff may not appeal to this court because she was required to first appeal her valuation dispute to the board.”
Willey v. Washington Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2026). “The court considers whether the correction may be made under either ORS 311.234 or ORS 311.205.1 The court grants a motion for summary judgment if all the documents on file “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(2)(b): 3 cases
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “205, and for a MAV correction under ORS 311.234. A. Property Valuation Appeals First Filed with Board of Property Tax Appeals Defendant maintains that Plaintiff may not appeal to this court because she was required to first appeal her valuation dispute to the board.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “3 ORS 311.234(1) allows a property owner or other taxpayer to petition a county for a MAV correction.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “3 ORS 311.234 was amended in 2015 to include new provisions creating a MAV correction for nonexistent property.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(3)(a): 1 case
Linstrom v. Lincoln Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2018). “Plaintiff filed with Defendant an application under ORS 311.234 to correct errors in square footage of the land and FINAL DECISION TC-MD 180084N 7 improvements for the 2017-18 tax year.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(3)(b): 2 cases
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “205, and for a MAV correction under ORS 311.234. A. Property Valuation Appeals First Filed with Board of Property Tax Appeals Defendant maintains that Plaintiff may not appeal to this court because she was required to first appeal her valuation dispute to the board.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “3 ORS 311.234 was amended in 2015 to include new provisions creating a MAV correction for nonexistent property.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(3)(b)(A): 3 cases
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “3 ORS 311.234 was amended in 2015 to include new provisions creating a MAV correction for nonexistent property.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “3 ORS 311.234(1) allows a property owner or other taxpayer to petition a county for a MAV correction.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “205, and for a MAV correction under ORS 311.234. A. Property Valuation Appeals First Filed with Board of Property Tax Appeals Defendant maintains that Plaintiff may not appeal to this court because she was required to first appeal her valuation dispute to the board.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(3)(b)(B): 3 cases
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “205, and for a MAV correction under ORS 311.234. A. Property Valuation Appeals First Filed with Board of Property Tax Appeals Defendant maintains that Plaintiff may not appeal to this court because she was required to first appeal her valuation dispute to the board.”
Willey v. Washington Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2026). “The court considers whether the correction may be made under either ORS 311.234 or ORS 311.205.1 The court grants a motion for summary judgment if all the documents on file “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to…”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2024). “3 ORS 311.234(1) allows a property owner or other taxpayer to petition a county for a MAV correction.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(5): 6 cases
Naidj v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, Tc-Md 091268d (or.tax 9-13-2010) (Or. T.C. 2010). “) Defendant-Washington County Assessor (Assessor) filed a response March 18, 2010, concluding that "the Assessor has no statutory authority to correct the MAV because no application was filed as required under ORS 311.234." (Assessor's Ltr at 4, Mar 18, 2010.”
Wynne v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2018). “As we will see in the legislative history section, it appears that ORS 311.234 was amended to allow for a MAV correction in response to the result in Su.”
Hopson v. Douglas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “3 ORS 311.234 was amended in 2015 to include new provisions creating a MAV correction for nonexistent property.”
Barnes v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “Here, Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that they petitioned Defendant using the form and process prescribed by ORS 311.234, so that statute provides no relief in this case.”
Norman v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, Tc-Md 100557c (or.tax 10-28-2010) (Or. T.C. 2010). “234(2) (providing that corrections under ORS 311.234 are made to the assessor's office) and ORS 311.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 311.234(6): 1 case
Barnes v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2025). “Here, Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that they petitioned Defendant using the form and process prescribed by ORS 311.234, so that statute provides no relief in this case.”
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.