Benson v. Marin County Assessment Appeals Board
219 Cal. App. 4th 1445
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Prop. 13 reassessment is triggered by a change in ownership; Legislature defined change in ownership via sections 60, 61, 62, and 65 focusing on family joint tenancies; task force recommended excluding creation of a family joint tenancy from change in ownership but reappraisal occurs on termination.
- Mother held Mill Valley home in joint tenancy with Peter; Dagmar died 1997, Peter became sole owner by survivorship; in 2007 James joined as joint tenant with Peter, later severed to become tenants in common.
- Assessor treated James’ transfer of his joint tenancy interest to himself as a change in ownership, increasing assessed value; Board reversed Assessor, trial court denied writ; Assessor appealed, Board amicus.
- Statutory scheme distinguishes family joint tenancies from other co-ownership transfers; creation of family joint tenancy is not a change in ownership, but termination triggers reappraisal.
- Board and trial court adopted a broad reading of section 62(a)(1) that Mikkelsen argues does not apply to family joint tenancies; the court otherwise evaluates the interplay of sections 60, 61, 62, and 65 to resolve the issue.
- The court ultimately reversed, holding there was a change in ownership upon termination of the family joint tenancy; the section 62(a)(1) exception does not apply to family joint tenancies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of a family joint tenancy triggers a change in ownership | Mikkelsen: no transfer of a present interest; section 60 controls | Assessor/Board: termination involves change in ownership per §§61,65 | Yes; termination constitutes change in ownership under the statutory scheme |
| Whether section 62(a)(1) applies to family joint tenancies | Terminating JT to tenancy in common falls under section 62(a)(1) exception | Section 62(a)(1) does not apply to family JTs; other provisions govern | No; section 62(a)(1) does not apply to family joint tenancies |
| Interpretation of the statutory scheme governing family JTs vs. general rule | General definition in section 60 governs all changes | Specific provisions for family JTs control | Specific family JT provisions control; termination triggers reappraisal |
| Role of legislative history and regulations in construing change in ownership | History supports section 60 as overarching | Statutes 61, 62, 65 refine and implement policy; Board regulations consistent | Legislation and history support treating family JTs separately; termination triggers change in ownership |
| Effect of Board interpretations and annotations on outcome | Annotations support no change on creation, but for termination reappraisal | Regulations align with statutory scheme; annotations corroborate position | Court accords deference to Board interpretations but agrees with statutory interpretation overall |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Harbor Enterprises, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, 1 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 1991) (statutory framework for change in ownership; Supreme Court discussion cited in opinion)
- Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 1298 (Cal. 2010) (emphasizes interpretation of change in ownership; legislative history significance)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (court deference to Board interpretations in tax matters)