Pali-Holloway v. L. A. Cnty. Assessment Appeals Bd.

PALI-HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent;COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

B283091

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

June 15, 2018

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS165943)

APPEAL from judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Robert A. Pool and Robert A. Pool, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lamb & Kawakami, Michael K. Slattery, Shane W. Tseng; Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Richard Girgado, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

____________________

Plaintiff and appellant Pali-Holloway, LLC filed an application in 2011 with defendant Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board (Appeals Board) seeking a reduction in a property tax assessment. In August 2016, the Appeals Board denied the application. Pali-Holloway filed a petition for a writ of mandate to compel the Appeals Board to give notice that the application was invalid and an opportunity to correct errors, to enter Pali-Holloway's opinion of the property's value on the assessment roll until the date of the final determination, and to make findings of fact regardless of whether Pali-Holloway had requested written findings. Real parties in interest and respondents on appeal, County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (collectively the County) filed a demurrer on the ground that Pali-Holloway had an adequate remedy at law in the form of a tax refund action. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition. Pali-Holloway appeals from the judgment of dismissal following the order sustaining the demurrer.

On appeal, Pali-Holloway contends the Appeals Board had a ministerial duty to: (1) provide notice that the application was invalid and an opportunity to correct errors under title 18, section 305, of the California Code of Regulations; (2) enter Pali-Holloway's opinion of the property's value on the assessment roll for the 2011 tax year and each successive year until a final determination was made under Revenue and Taxation Code section 1604;¹ and (3) make findings of fact pursuant to Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506 (Topanga), regardless of whether written findings were requested. We conclude the petition fails to state a claim for a writ of mandate compelling the Appeals Board to provide Pali-Holloway with an opportunity to correct application errors, to enter Pali-Holloway's opinion of value on the assessment roll, or to make findings in the absence of a request for findings. Therefore, we affirm.

FACTS

Pali-Holloway owned or leased property on Holloway Drive in West Hollywood. New construction was completed on the property on February 28, 2008. Property taxes of approximately $221,000 were levied in 2011, based on a total assessment of $22,131,098. The assessment included thevalues of the land, the improvement, the fixtures and the personal property.

On September 27, 2011, Pali-Holloway filed an application with the Appeals Board seeking to reduce the assessment of the property. In Pali-Holloway's opinion, the total value of the property was $8,908,399, based on lower values for the land and the improvement, and no value for fixtures or personal property. The difference would reduce Pali-Holloway's property taxes by $130,000. Pali-Holloway checked a box on the application that it was not requesting written findings of facts. It also did not designate the application as a claim for refund.

The form required Pali-Holloway to state the facts supporting the requested change in value by checking all boxes that applied. If uncertain, the applicant could simply check "other" and attach a brief explanation of the reason for filing the application. Pali-Holloway checked a box stating that the base year value that was assessed based on a change in ownership on February 28, 2008, was incorrect. It did not check a box directly below that to state the base year value that was assessed based on new construction on February 28, 2008, was incorrect. Pali-Holloway also checked a box to challenge the assessor's valuation of all personal property and fixtures.

In July 2012, Pali-Holloway granted the Appeals Board a two-year extension of time to hear the matter. The waiver expired. On August 4, 2016, the Appeals Board held an administrative equalization hearing. Pali-Holloway testifiedthat it had made a clerical error on the application and intended to challenge the base year value based on new construction rather than a change in ownership. The Appeals Board did not provide Pali-Holloway with an opportunity to correct the application. During the course of the hearing, the Appeals Board declared the application to be invalid as filed. The Appeals Board denied the application without hearing evidence on the value of the property. No explanation for the Board's decision was contained on the mandatory audio recording of the proceedings.

A written notice of the Board's decision was issued on August 17, 2016. The notice lists the facts on which the application was filed and the action taken as to each fact. The challenge to the assessor's value of personal property and fixtures had been withdrawn. The Appeals Board listed the fact that the change of ownership-base year value was incorrect and denied the application on that basis.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2016, Pali-Holloway filed a petition for a writ of mandate directed to the Appeals Board under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 (traditional mandate) or 1094.5 (administrative mandate). An amended petition was filed on November 22, 2016, to attach a verification. Pali-Holloway sought to compel the Appeals Board to: (1) carry out a ministerial duty to provide notice that theapplication was invalid and a reasonable opportunity to correct the errors; (2) enter Pali-Holloway's opinion of value as stated on the application form for the 2011 tax year as the new construction base year assessment on the assessment roll for each tax year beginning in 2011 until the Board made a valid final determination on the application; and (3) provide a finding on the audio recording of the administrative hearing, regardless of whether written findings had been requested, pursuant to Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pages 513-514.

The Appeals Board filed a statement of non-opposition to the petition for writ of mandate, taking no position on the merits and declining to be an active participant in the proceedings. The County filed a demurrer on the ground that Pali-Holloway had an adequate remedy at law in the form of a tax refund action. The County argued that Pali-Holloway submitted a valid application challenging the base year value, but testified at the hearing that it did not intend to challenge the base year value. The Appeals Board had discretion under these circumstances to decline leave to amend, and a discretionary ruling is not ministerial. Pali-Holloway had an adequate remedy to review the determination for an abuse of discretion in a property tax refund action.

Pali-Holloway opposed the demurrer. It argued that the Board found the application was invalid but did not provide an opportunity for correction, which violated the applicable laws. Even if the Board had discretion overamendment under these circumstances, the demurrer failed to address Pali-Holloway's remaining claims based on its rights to a timely hearing and findings.

The County filed a reply. The trial court found that traditional mandamus was not available, because legal errors during an administrative hearing were governed by administrative mandamus. The exclusive means to seek judicial review of the Board's assessment decision was a tax refund action. Pali-Holloway had an adequate remedy at law in a refund action, and therefore, mandamus was not available in any form to review the Board's decision. The claim for a finding on the audio recording was subject to the same analysis. Although a writ of mandate may be supported when an appeals board fails to make a final determination on an application within two years, the petition disclosed that the Board had made, before the petition was filed, a determination and denied the application. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that Pali-Holloway had an adequate remedy at law in a refund action. On the stipulation of the parties, the trial court dismissed the action. Pali-Holloway filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

"A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint. We independently review the superior court's ruling on a demurrer and determine de novo whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense. (Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1081, 1100; Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42.) We assume the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of which judicial notice has been taken. (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 20; Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.) We liberally construe the pleading with a view to substantial justice between the parties (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; Gilkyson v. Disney Enterprises, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1340; see Schifando, at p. 1081 [complaint must be...