Opinion ID: 1391760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This case involves a process or proceeding within the meaning of ORS 34.020, the writ of review statute.

Text: ORS 34.020 provides: Except for a proceeding resulting in a land use decision as defined in section 3, chapter 772, Oregon Laws 1979, for which review is provided in sections 4 to 6, chapter 772, Oregon Laws 1979, any party to any process or proceeding before or by any inferior court, officer, or tribunal may have the decision or determination thereof reviewed for errors, as provided in ORS 34.010 to 34.100, and not otherwise.    (Emphasis added) Petitioner contends that it was not a party to a process or proceeding within the meaning of that statute; that there is no provision for the Board of Commissioners to hold a formal hearing on requests for tax refunds and that there was no record of a proceeding to be reviewed. [8] In our opinion, these contentions by the petitioner confuse two separate questions: (1) whether writ of review was not available as a remedy, so as to make mandamus an appropriate remedy, and (2) whether writ of review was not an adequate remedy in this case, so as to make mandamus an appropriate remedy. A writ of review is an available remedy under ORS 203.200 when it involves a decision by a county Board of Commissioners made in the transaction of county business. As previously held, the denial by respondents of petitioner's claim for a tax refund was a decision made in the transaction of county business within the meaning of ORS 203.200. It follows that a writ of review was available as a remedy to the petitioner in this case. If, however, a writ of review, even though an available remedy, would not have provided an adequate remedy to the petitioner, it might be contended that petitioner was entitled to a remedy by writ of mandamus. See Mt. Hood Stages v. Haley, 253 Or. 28, 37-39, 445 P.2d 878, 453 P.2d 435 (1969), and State ex rel. Ricco v. Biggs, 198 Or. 413, 425, 255 P.2d 1055 (1953). ORS 34.110 provides in part:    The writ shall not be issued in any case where there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. If the petitioner in this case had requested a hearing before the Board of Commissioners for the purpose of offering evidence, such as upon the question of excusable neglect, and if it had requested the Board to then make a finding upon the basis of such evidence, such a request, if refused, might have provided a proper basis for a contention that a writ of review was not an adequate remedy and that petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the county commissioners to hold such a hearing, to receive and consider such evidence, and to make such a finding. In this case, however, petitioner made no such request, but instead demanded that the Board of Commissioners rule that as a matter of law it was entitled to a tax refund. Having made its request for a tax refund on that basis, we are of the opinion that a writ of review provided an adequate remedy for review of the decision by respondents upon the request made by petitioner, i.e., that it rule as a matter of law whether petitioner was entitled to a tax refund on the basis of the claim submitted by petitioner. Having failed to apply to the Tax Court for a writ of review within 60 days of the rejection of its claim by respondents on January 7, 1976, as required by ORS 34.030, [9] petitioner is not now entitled to relief by writ of mandamus. See McAlmond v. Myers, 262 Or. 521, 526, 500 P.2d 457 (1972). [10] It follows that the Tax Court did not err in dismissing this proceeding. Affirmed. [11]