Judge Carolyn M. Caietti, Case 37-2022-00049490-CU-WM-CTL 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00049490-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024 10:30:00 AM C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Writ of Mandate Hearing on Petition 37-2022-00049490-CU-WM-CTL DRONENBURG VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD NO 4 CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Petition for Writ of Mandate, 12/07/2022

Petitioner Assessor for the County of San Diego's Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (ROA 1 - Case No. 2022-49490) is GRANTED.

Petitioner Assessor for the County of San Diego's Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (ROA 20 - Case No. 2023-714) is GRANTED.

Petitioner Assessor for the County of San Diego's Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (ROA 21 - Case No. 2023-671) is GRANTED.

Background These consolidated petitions are brought under C.C.P. section 1085 and, alternatively, under section 1094.5. Petitioner Ernest Dronenburg, in his capacity as Assessor for the County of San Diego, petitions the Court for a writ of mandate directed to the Assessment Appeals Board No. 4 of the County of San Diego (the Appeals Board).

Generally, Petitioner is required to assess all property subject to general taxation as provided in the Constitution and any legislative authorization. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 401.3.) The Appeals Board is required to hear applications for reduction of property tax assessments and to hear and determine factual and legal issues raised by those applications.

As applicable here, if property is damaged or destroyed by misfortune or calamity, owners may request property be reassessed downward to reflect its current value in the damaged condition under Revenue and Taxation Code section 170. On May 22, 2020, the State Board of Equalization sent a memorandum, concluding, 'the Board must administer section 170 to require physical damage' and stating, '[i]f the Board were again to apply such an expansive view of section 170 to the economic damage caused by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, it is highly unlikely to withstand legal challenge.' (ROA 20-21 - Petitions, at Ex. F.) Real Parties in Interest Old Town Trolley Tours of San Diego, Inc., Coronado Associates, LLC and Old Town Family Hospitality Corp. (collectively, RPI) have possessory interests in property within the County of San Diego. They each filed an application for reassessment (a Calamity Claim) with Petitioner for the 2019 and 2020 tax years based on the COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns resulting from the Governor's stay-at-home order. Petitioner determined RPI were not eligible for calamity relief. Petitioner did not make any reassessments and gave RPI notice of its denial and finding of ineligibility. (ROA 1 – Petition, Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3014946 52 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: DRONENBURG VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESSMENT 37-2022-00049490-CU-WM-CTL at Ex. A; ROA 20-21 – Petitions, at Ex. G.) RPI then appealed to the Appeals Board for review and included only Petitioner's denial letter with its application. The Appeals Board held a hearing and decided it had jurisdiction to review the denials. The Assessor filed these petitions, arguing the Appeals Board erred in several ways, including by finding it had jurisdiction over an assessment appeal application where no proposed reassessment was made.

Preliminary Matter Petitioner's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted and notice will be taken to the extent permitted. (ROA 45.) RPI's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted and notice will be taken to the extent permitted.

(ROA 50.) Standard of Review RPI do not dispute Petitioner's statement of the standard of review. The Appeals Board is subject to the Court's power to compel compliance with a legal duty under C.C.P. section 1085. A traditional writ of mandate will issue to 'compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station' 'where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law' (CV Amalgamated LLC v. City of Chula Vista (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 265, 278, citing C.C.P., §§ 1085-86.) 'What is required to obtain writ relief is a showing by a petitioner of (1) A clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent ...; and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty. ' (Ibid. (internal quotations omitted); see also, County of Sacramento v. Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 2 (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 654, 673 (finding county had no adequate remedy at law and a writ of mandamus was the proper procedure to review the tax proceedings whether labelled administrative mandamus, regular mandamus or certiorari).) Discussion Based on the parties' legal authority and argument, the Appeals Board erred when it found it had jurisdiction to decide the validity of RPI's Calamity Claims.

Revenue and Taxation Code section 170 is a broad property tax disaster relief statute and allows assesses of taxable property whose property was damaged or destroyed without his or her fault to apply for reassessment of that property. Section 170 authorizes the Assessor, not the Appeals Board, to determine whether an applicant is eligible for reassessment. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 170(b) ['Upon receiving a proper application, the assessor shall appraise the property...']; id., at subd. (c)(2) ['The assessor shall notify the applicant in writing of the amount of the proposed reassessment.'].) While an assessee may appeal to the Appeal Board, such an appeal is limited to review of a 'proposed reassessment.' (Id., at subd. (c)(2); see also, Petitioner's RFJN Ex. A – Assessment Appeals Manual, Chp. 6, p. 73 ['On an application appealing a reassessed value pursuant to section 170, an appeals board has jurisdiction to determine the full value of the property at the time of the disaster or at the time of restoration following the disaster...'] (emphasis added).) Neither Section 170, nor the Assessment Appeals Manual give the Appeals Board authority to initiate reassessment, determine whether property was damaged as a result of a misfortune or calamity or to review the Assessor's determination that an applicant is not eligible for relief.

The Assessor's denial letter finding RPI were ineligible also did not qualify as a notice of reassessment.

First, the Assessor made no determination as to value and, as argued by Petitioner, to do so would have: (i) been outside the scope of its authority; (ii) required the Assessor to perform a reassessment on an illegible claim.

Second, Section 170 does not require the Assessor to notify the RPI they are ineligible for relief, but Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3014946 52 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: DRONENBURG VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESSMENT 37-2022-00049490-CU-WM-CTL such notice is required by the State Board of Equalization under Section 194.1(b). This section provides 'If, pursuant to Section 170, a timely claim for deferral is filed, the payment shall be deferred ...until one of the following occur:...(2) the assessor has determined that the property is not eligible to be reassessed pursuant to Section 170, and the assessor has so notified the property owner.' (Rev. & Tax.

Code, § 194.1(b)(2).) Further, the State Board of Equalization required Assessors to notify taxpayers when they are ineligible for relief. (Petitioner's RFJN Ex. D – Letter to Assessors 2019/002.) RPI's reliance on Williams & Fickett v. County of Fresno (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1258 and LA Live Properties, LLC v. County of Los Angeles (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 363 is not on point. In both cases, the assessor had reassessed the properties (notice of escape reassessments). No such reassessment occurred here.

RPI has not provided any case law showing the Appeals Board may make eligibility determinations.

Thus, the Appeal Board erred as a matter of law when it found it had jurisdiction over an assessment appeal under Section 170 where no proposed reassessment was actually made. In failing to reject RPI's application as invalid and ordering the application to proceed to valuation, the Appeal Board abused its discretion and failed to perform an act required by law.

As the Court finds the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to decide whether the Appeals Board erred in the other ways alleged in the Petitions.

Thus, all three petitions are GRANTED.

Concluding Orders Let a writ of mandate issue commanding Respondent County of San Diego Assessment Appeals Board No. 4 to: (i) vacate and set aside its decision in Application Number 2020-04502 by Real Party in Interest Old Town Trolley Tours of San Diego, Inc.; and (ii) dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Let a writ of mandate issue commanding Respondent County of San Diego Assessment Appeals Board No. 4 to: (i) vacate and set aside its decision in Application Number 2020-04500 by Real Party in Interest Port Coronado Associates LLC; and (ii) dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Let a writ of mandate issue commanding Respondent County of San Diego Assessment Appeals Board No. 4 to: (i) vacate and set aside its decision in Application Number 2020-04499 by Real Party in Interest Old Town Family Hospitality Corp.; and (ii) dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner is ordered to maintain custody of the administrative records in its original form pending exhaustion of any appeals of this matter.

Petitioner is ordered to: (i) prepare and submit a judgment for each petition in accordance with any rules and laws; and (ii) serve written notice of this ruling by April 3, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3014946 52