Posted on 03/28/2004 12:12:47 AM PST by heleny
SANTA ANA, Calif. -- An appeals court Friday overturned a Superior Court judge's ruling in a property tax lawsuit that could have cost Orange County hundreds of millions of dollars in tax refunds.
The county assessor's office may increase property taxes by more than 2 percent in a year following a period when home values dipped or remained flat, justices with the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled.
The case involved a lawsuit against the county assessor by Seal Beach resident Robert Pool. Pool, a property tax attorney, alleged the assessor violated Proposition 13 by increasing the taxable property value beyond 2 percent.
Proposition 13, passed in 1978, limits annual property assessments to a 2 percent increase per year, except in the case of new construction or a sale.
Local governments argue that the provision doesn't apply when property values remain flat or drop during a recession, then surge as real estate values rebound. In those cases, counties routinely hike the taxable property value beyond 2 percent.
The three 4th District justices sided with the county in Friday's 17-page ruling, saying Pool's interpretation was "fundamentally inconsistent with the system Proposition 13 put in place."
Superior Court Judge John Watson ruled in favor of Pool three years ago, and in 2002 approved class-action status for the lawsuit, which caused the county to fear it could be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in property tax refunds.
County Supervisor Tom Wilson said he was relieved by Friday's ruling.
"It provides the county with a comfort level with all our financial challenges," he said.
Neither Pool nor David Gangloff, a partner in his law firm who also argued in the case, returned calls placed Friday after business hours.
The case arose after Pool bought his Seal Beach home for $330,000 in November 1995. The home's taxable value was flat for two years, but the assessor raised the assessed value more than $13,000 in 1998, saying the jump was justified. The assessor's hike prompted Pool to sue.
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldtribune.com ...
Absolutely, but you don't have to commit to that yet. You can start with the online chapters. There is an email addy if you have questions. If I can't deal with it online you'll get a phone number. If you still have questions after that, I offer guided tours. The $30 is about covering costs. If you read the whole thing and still don't get it after making a sincere effort to resolve any questions, I refund the money. Frankly, so far, I have not had to pay a claim, but still have lost a bundle on the whole venture.
If you are serious about mastering these principles, I will do everything within my power to make certain you master them. They are transformational. I regard imparting them as a God-given responsibility attendant to what has been revealed to me and thus take all questions sincerely. We have been so brainwashed in our understanding of economics and government that I have real compassion for the effort necessary to break out of those perceptions. When it hits, there is one monstrous "oh, duh," moment, and you'll wonder why the hell it had to be so hard. You'll never see things quite the same way after that. BTW, by the time you are less than half done with it, you will understand why the tenth commandment comes in the second most important place in the list.
I agree with you about Prop 8 being temporary. I would understand if the property assessment were allowed back to 102% of the previous high assessment (before a temporary decline because of Prop 8), but that wasn't the decision of either court.
Robert Pool's case is a very straightforward example, since his home price was flat for at least two years before suddenly increasing 4% (so it should not not involve any Prop 8 temporary decline). Should the new assessment be limited to 102% of the previous year's assessment, or should it be limited to 104% of the assessment two years earlier? I thought the intent of the 2% limit in Prop 13 was so that the owner's tax burden would not increase a large amount in one year. If in the intermediate years the property value was not increasing, why should the assessor get to apply 2% for those years?
It almost seems the assessor is assuming the value always increases 2% per year and he's giving you a (Prop 8 temporary) tax discount every year the true value increased less than 2%. I just can't agree with the appeals court decision.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A (TAX LIMITATION)
SEC. 2. (b) The full cash value base may reflect from year to year the inflationary rate not to exceed 2 percent for any given year or reduction as shown in the consumer price index or comparable data for the area under taxing jurisdiction, or may be reduced to reflect substantial damage, destruction or other factors causing a decline in value.
There's a balance to be struck between the needs of individuals and their obligations to society. Government costs money.
Keep in mind also the force driving these changes and stresses - population growth. People want to live somewhere. If land costs are too high housing construction dies, the economy dies, and people must live nowhere. They don't like that.
Our economy exists on growth. Without it we have chaos. There's a contradiction of course. Growth cannot continue exponentially and indefinitely in a world of finite resources. No one has a solution to that problem. Most people refuse to recognize its existance.
Hahaha.... Surprise, surprise!
Like these corrupt scumbags were going to side with tax-paying citizens and rule against the government whose trough they have their snouts in? I don't think so....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.