Lake County assessed the property in dispute, for real estate tax purposes, at an average value of $

In early 2008, relator Marlow Timberland, LLC (Marlow Timberland), purchased nearly 40,000 acres of real property located in Lake County, Minnesota, from Potlatch Corporation. Based on its belief that Lake County's property tax assessment of this land was too high, Marlow Timberland filed a tax petition in April 2008 challenging the taxes payable in 2008. Lake County moved to dismiss the 2008 petition because it included noncontiguous parcels from multiple jurisdictions in violation of Minn.Stat. § 278.02 (2010). Marlow Timberland later filed tax petitions challenging the taxes payable in 2009 and 2010, which were subsequently dismissed pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 278.03, subd. 1 (2010), due to Marlow weekend cruise trip Timberland's failure to pay the taxes due for those years. Marlow Timberland moved to reinstate the 2009 and 2010 petitions based on its contention that the Lake County properties weekend cruise trip were overassessed and that it was unable to pay the taxes due on the properties. After a telephone hearing on the parties' motions, the Minnesota Tax Court issued an order granting Lake County's motion to dismiss the 2008 petition and denying Marlow Timberland's motion to reinstate the 2009 and 2010 petitions. We reverse weekend cruise trip the tax court's decision regarding the 2008 petition and affirm the tax court's decision regarding the 2009 and 2010 petitions.
Beginning in 2006 and continuing into early 2008, Roy Marlow, on behalf of Marlow Timberland, negotiated with Potlatch weekend cruise trip Corporation in an arms-length transaction to purchase nearly 40,000 acres of land owned by Potlatch Corporation, which included 744 separate tax parcels located throughout Lake County. The purchase price for the property was $385 per acre. Marlow weekend cruise trip Timberland's business plan anticipated that it could carry the costs of the land purchase and real estate taxes of the Lake County property through sales of property and timber. But Marlow Timberland claims that this business plan failed due to the inflated property assessment, the costs of timber fiber harvesting, and the plummeting value of timber fiber during the current recession.
weekend cruise trip Lake County assessed the property in dispute, for real estate tax purposes, weekend cruise trip at an average value of $1,000 per acre. In early 2008, however, Marlow Timberland obtained an appraisal that valued the property at an average of $744 per acre. On April 24, 2008, Marlow Timberland filed a tax petition for the taxes payable in 2008 alleging that the 744 tax parcels, which are located in four townships and two unorganized territories, were overassessed. In compliance with Minn.Stat. § 278.03, weekend cruise trip subd. 1, the taxes payable in 2008 on the contested parcels were timely paid. On March 29, 2010, Lake County moved to dismiss the 2008 petition because weekend cruise trip the petition included noncontiguous parcels from multiple jurisdictions in violation of Minn.Stat. § 278.02 (limiting a single petition to parcels located in the same city or town, unless the parcels are contiguous).
On April 29, 2009, Marlow Timberland filed four tax petitions—separated so that each petition listed parcels located in only one of three townships and one unorganized weekend cruise trip territory—challenging the taxes payable weekend cruise trip in 2009. On April 16, 2010, Marlow Timberland filed four tax petitions—again separated so that each petition listed parcels located in only one of three townships and one organized territory—challenging the taxes payable in 2010. Like the 2008 petition, the 2009 and 2010 tax petitions were based on Marlow Timberland's contention that the tax parcels were overassessed. The 2009 and 2010 tax petitions were automatically dismissed pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 278.03, subd. 1, however, because Marlow Timberland failed to pay the second half installment for the taxes payable weekend cruise trip in 2009 and both installments for the taxes payable in 2010. On September 23, 2010, Marlow Timberland moved to reinstate the 2009 and 2010 tax petitions under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, weekend cruise trip claiming that “the assessment value of its properties is arbitrary and unreasonable, and [that it] is unable to pay [the 2009 and 2010 property taxes] due to dire financial hardship.”
After conducting a telephone hearing on October 12, 2010, the tax court issued an order granting Lake County's motion to dismiss weekend cruise trip the 2008 petition and denying Marlow Timberland's motion to reinstate the 2009 and 2010 petitions. Marlow Timberland, LLC v. Cnty. of Lake, Nos. 38–CV–08–313, 38–CV–09–261 to –264, 38–CV–10–231 to –233, 2010 WL 4868020 (Minn. T.C. Nov. 23, 2010). With regard to the 2008 petition, the tax court stated that Marlow Timberland had cited no authority supporting its position that it should weekend cruise trip be allowed to proceed with respect to the parcels in one of the townships. Id . at *4. With regard to the 2009 and 2010 petitions, the tax court concluded that relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 is not available when a taxpayer fails to pay the required tax or request relief before the taxes are due and that even if the rule applied, Marlow Timberland would be unable to show inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect as required to qualify for relief under that rule. 2010 WL 4868020, at *2–4.
Although Marlow Timberland weekend cruise trip concedes that its 2008 petition, as filed, did not comply with Minn.Stat. § 278.02, weekend cruise trip Marlow Timberland argues weekend cruise trip that the tax court erred by not allowing it to amend the petition pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01. We review tax court decisions to determine whether the tax court lacked subject weekend cruise trip matter weekend cruise trip jurisdiction, whether the tax court's decision is supported by evidence in the record, and whether the tax court made an error of law. Minn.Stat. § 271.10, subd. 1 (2010); Hohmann v. Comm'r of Revenue, 781 N.W.2d 156, 157 (Minn.2010). “We review the tax court's weekend cruise trip findings weekend cruise trip of fact to determine whether sufficient evidence supports those findings.” Schober weekend cruise trip v. Comm'r weekend cruise trip of Revenue, 778 N.W.2d 289, 291 (Minn.2010); see also Watlow Winona, Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 495 N.W.2d 427, 431 (Minn.1993). In determining whether the tax court correctly applied weekend cruise trip Minnesota law, our review is de novo. Hohmann, 781 N.W.2d at 157; see also McLane Minn., Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, weekend cruise trip 773 N.W.2d 289, 293 (Minn .2009) (“We review the tax court's conclusions of law and interpretation of statutes de novo.”).
weekend cruise trip A party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before weekend cruise trip a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within weekend cruise trip 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.
(Emphasis added.) We have stated weekend cruise trip that “[a] party may amend a pleading by leave of [the] court” and that a motion to amend pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01 “should be freely granted, except where to do so would result in prejudice to the other party.” Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993) (considering whether trial court erred by not granting party's motion weekend cruise trip to amend complaint); accord Voicestream Minneapolis, weekend cruise trip Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., 743 N.W.2d 267, 272 (Minn.2008) (“Leave to amend [pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01] should be freely granted unless it results in prejudice to the other party.”).
Although not clearly stated, the essence of Marlow Timberland's argument is that the tax court should have allowed its proposed amendment to the petition because an amendment would not result in any prejudice to Lake County. weekend cruise trip In denying the amendment, the tax court gave no explanation and made no findings as to why Lake County would be prejudiced by Marlow Timberland's amendment. The tax court simply noted that Marlow Timberland had failed to cite any authority supporting its position that it should be allowed to proceed with respect to one of the townships included in the petition. But Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01 clearly allows amendment weekend cruise trip of the petition if “justice so requires.” On the record before us, we see no prejudice to Lake County and no reason why justice would not be served by allowing Marlow Timberland to amend its petition as proposed. Therefore, we reverse the tax court's decision rejecting Marlow Timberland's amendment to the 2008 petition.
Next, Marlow Timberland argues that the tax court erred in denying its motion to reinstate the 2009 and 2010 tax petitions. Marlow Timberland's 2009 and 2010 petitions were automatically dismissed because Marlow Timberland failed to pay the second installment of taxes payable in 2009 and any of the taxes payable in 2010 on the contested parcels. See Minn.Stat. § 278.03, subd. 1. However, Marlow Timberland contends that the tax court erred because Marlow Timberland qualifies for relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, or, in the alternative, because the 2009 and 2010 petitions should be reinstated on an equitable basis. We disagree.
A real property owner who seeks to file a petition seeking to challenge property taxes must follow the framework set forth in Minn.Stat. § 278.03, subd. 1. The statute requires a petitioner to pay the contested taxes due on the property in order to proceed with a tax petition. 1 Section 278.03, subdivision 1, also provides a means by which a petitioner weekend cruise trip may proceed without full payment of the tax. Minn.Stat. § 278.03, subd. 1. The statute provides:
The petitioner, upon ten days' notice to the county attorney and to the county auditor, given at least ten days prior to the 16th day of May or the 16th day of October, weekend cruise trip or, in the case of class 1b agricultural homestead, class 2a agricultural homestead, and class 2b(2) agricultural nonhomestead property, the 16th day of November, may apply to the court for permission to continue prosecution of the petition without payment; and, if it is made to appear
Id. But “[f]ailure to make payment of the amount required weekend cruise trip when due shall operate automatically to dismiss the petition and all proceedings thereunder unless the payment is