California State University, Fresno Ass'n v. County of Fresno
9 Cal. App. 5th 250
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- California State University, Fresno Association, Inc. (Association) operated Save Mart Center. It received supplemental and escape assessments for 2003–2006 and filed assessment reduction applications under Rev. & Tax. Code § 1603 in 2007, not designated as refund claims.
- The Fresno County Assessment Appeals Board (Board) issued its final decision (mailed Nov. 4, 2010; findings mailed Dec. 2, 2010) reducing values but did not advise Association to file a refund claim.
- Association paid the challenged taxes and penalties on May 5, 2011, then filed an administrative refund claim with Fresno County on Feb. 24, 2012. The County denied the claim; Association sued under § 5140 after denial.
- County moved to dismiss/defend on grounds the refund claim was untimely under Rev. & Tax. Code § 5097(a)(3)(A)(i) (one-year deadline after Board final determination and mailing of notice). The superior court held the one-year period did not begin until taxes were paid and found Association timely; it reversed Board on valuation grounds.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal reviewed statute interpretation and held the one-year filing rule in § 5097(a)(3)(A)(i) runs from mailing of the Board’s final determination (not from payment), so Association’s claim was untimely; the judgment was reversed and the case remanded with directions to dismiss. Association’s attorney-fees challenge was rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 5097(a)(3)(A)(i) one‑year claim period begins on the Board’s mailing of its final determination or only after the taxpayer pays the disputed taxes | Association: the one‑year period does not begin to run until the disputed taxes are paid, so its Feb. 2012 claim (filed after May 2011 payment) was timely | County: the plain text starts the one‑year period upon the Board’s mailing of its final determination, so Association’s 2012 claim was untimely | Held for County: the statute’s plain language controls; the one‑year period runs from the Board’s mailing and is not delayed by payment timing; Association’s claim was untimely and court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the statutory filing requirement in § 5097(a) is subject to equitable tolling | Association: equitable tolling should excuse any time defect because it acted reasonably and in good faith | County: § 5097(a) is a jurisdictional claim‑presentation rule (not a statute of limitations) and equitable tolling cannot override it | Held for County: § 5097(a) is a claims‑presentation prerequisite (jurisdictional); equitable tolling does not apply to extend it |
| Whether the superior court’s denial of attorney’s fees award was appealable after reversal of merits | Association: challenges trial court’s refusal to award attorney’s fees under § 1611.6 | County: reversal of the judgment eliminates Association’s prevailing‑party status | Held for County: moot — Association is no longer prevailing party after reversal, so the fees appeal is dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- State Bd. of Equalization v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 633 (discusses the "pay first, litigate later" rule and refunds after payment)
- Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 1298 (describing the three‑step process: assessment appeal, refund claim, then court action)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. City and County of San Francisco, 174 Cal.App.4th 1201 (interpreting refund‑claim timing under § 5097 in contexts tied to payment‑based deadlines)
- Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San Benito, 72 Cal.App.4th 1 (stating timely filing of a refund claim is a statutory prerequisite to a refund action)
- Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 31 Cal.4th 363 (limits applicability of equitable tolling where statute’s text and purpose bar it)
- Woosley v. State of California, 3 Cal.4th 758 (explaining strict legislative control over tax refund procedures and need for enforcement)