236 Cal. App. 4th 858
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Cafferkeys purchased property in 1999 in San Francisco (APN 28-4329-18) and later had Lot 15 renumbered to Lot 17 in 2000; in 2002-2003 Lot 15 was split for tax purposes into Lots 17 and 18, with Lot 18 described on assessor's maps as APN 28-4329-18.
- In 2003 parcel maps subdivided Lot 17 into Lots 19–28; Lot 18 did not appear on 2000 or 2003 parcel maps, yet property tax bills for Lot 18 circulated from 2003 onward.
- Through 2009 the Cafferkeys paid some taxes for Lot 18; they halted payments after realizing Lot 18 did not appear on parcel maps; in 2009 a tax sale notice arose and they paid back taxes to avoid sale.
- The Board denied refunds for 2003–2009 as untimely but accepted 2010 for merits review, ultimately holding Lot 18 exists for property tax purposes on assessor’s maps; the Board rejected claims of clerical error and indistinctness between assessor’s maps and parcel maps.
- Superior Court granted City summary judgment, concluding no material discrepancy existed between parcel maps and assessor’s maps that would mandate a refund; Cafferkeys appealed.
- Court conducted de novo review and held assessor’s maps create Lot 18 under § 327, and no triable issue of fact remained about compliance with § 327; taxes for Lot 18 were not erroneous or illegally collected; judgment for City affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lot 18 was validly created under § 327. | Cafferkeys: Lot 18 not shown on parcel maps; created by clerical error or by mistake. | City: Lot 18 created under § 327 and exists for tax purposes despite parcel-map labeling. | Yes; Lot 18 valid under § 327. |
| Whether assessor’s maps comply with § 327 to describe Lot 18. | Maps may not comply; descriptions unclear or misleading. | Assessor’s maps clearly identify Lot 18 for tax assessment. | Yes; maps comply. |
| Whether any triable issues exist regarding the authenticity or nature of the maps (assessor vs parcel) that would preclude summary judgment. | Thomas deposition shows conflict about map origins; maps may be off-record. | Deposition does not create a genuine issue; maps sufficiently identify Lot 18; no misalignment with § 327. | No triable issue; summary judgment appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prudential Ins. Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 191 Cal.App.3d 1142 (Cal. App. Dist. 1, 1987) (assessor’s handbooks are not regulations but may guide resolution of disputes)
- SHC Half Moon Bay, LLC v. County of San Mateo, 226 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. App. Dist. 1, 2014) (courts rely on assessor’s handbook in resolving property tax disputes)
- Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Board of Equalization, 57 Cal.4th 593 (Cal. 2003) (high-level discussion of tax assessment principles and map usage)
- E.E. McCalla Co. v. Sleeper, 105 Cal.App.2d 562 (Cal. App. 1930) (descriptions on assessor’s maps must readily identify land for assessment)
- Sinai v. Mull, 80 Cal.App.2d 277 (Cal. App. 1947) (illustrates defective uncertain descriptions in tax proceedings)
- Smith v. City of Los Angeles, 158 Cal. 702 (Cal. 1910) (assessor’s map validity where lands not properly surveyed under older codes)
- Sixells, LLC v. Cannery Business Park, 170 Cal.App.4th 648 (Cal. App. Dist. 2, 2008) (distinguishes assessor vs parcel map descriptions for tax purposes)