Twin Place: An Unsupported Continuance Request and Missing Appraisals Ended the Tax Petitions

A last-minute letter about an appraiser’s illness did not establish good cause to delay these property-tax trials. In Twin Place Apartments LLC v. County of Hennepin, Nos. 27-CV-24-7378 et al. (Minn. Tax Ct. Jan. 16, 2026), the Minnesota Tax Court denied continuances and dismissed 13 consolidated petitions after the owners failed to exchange appraisals and arrived without evidence to rebut the assessments.

The orders set a firm trial date

The petitions challenged January 2, 2023 assessments for taxes payable in 2024. Scheduling orders set trial for December 16, 2025 and expressly distinguished that date from a trial-ready setting. They required a written motion and supporting affidavit for a continuance based on good cause.

A letter dated December 12 arrived on December 15. Counsel said the retained appraiser’s medical condition prevented completion and testimony, and proposed that the appraiser’s son might finish the work. The county opposed a delay. Twin Place, order, PDF pages 1–3.

The explanation did not account for the preparation history

The court examined diligence, not simply the existence of illness. Counsel had known about the appraiser’s condition for more than a year. No appraisals had been exchanged, and communication with the county had not occurred until the trial was imminent. The letter lacked the affidavit required by the scheduling orders. Counsel also acknowledged that he had believed the matters were set for a trial-ready date rather than a firm trial until shortly beforehand, despite the orders’ express distinction.

The proposed substitute also did not establish a concrete, supported plan for finishing the cases. The court found that the failure to prepare, rather than an unexpected event that made a trial-ready case impossible, explained why the owners could not proceed. It denied the continuances and called the matters for trial. Twin Place at 3–4.

The appraisal-exchange statute carried a dismissal consequence

Minnesota Statutes section 278.05, subdivision 6(d), requires a petitioner contesting income-producing property’s value to furnish the county assessor with an appraisal, if any, to be presented at the hearing at least five days before it. The quoted provision directs dismissal for noncompliance.

The court applied that requirement to these cases and dismissed the petitions. The five-day period is a Minnesota statutory rule for the proceeding described; it is not a general exchange deadline for property-tax challenges in other states. The order’s scheduling terms and the relevant statute worked together in the court’s analysis.

The absence of valuation evidence supplied an additional ground

The court also addressed the assessments’ prima facie validity under Minnesota law. With no appraisal or other evidence presented to overcome the county’s values, the owners had not carried their valuation challenge.

That alternative reasoning explains why a case can fail for both a missed procedural requirement and an inadequate evidentiary presentation. A later claim that the assessment seems too high would not supply the missing trial evidence or explain the failure to meet the exchange requirement. Twin Place at 4–5.

The January order memorialized the December trial result

The January 16 order dismissed the petitions and affirmed the assessments after the December 16 proceedings. The relevant dates should remain distinct: Assessment date, tax year payable, trial setting and written order each perform a different role.

Our guide to an unavailable appraiser before a property-tax trial focuses on the practical response: Verify the governing deadlines, document the preparation history and obtain an actual ruling on any continuance request. The Minnesota decision does not replace California assessment-appeal rules or advice from counsel in the proper jurisdiction.