Hagman v. Meher Mount Corp.
215 Cal. App. 4th 82
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Hagman owns a 30-acre parcel in Ojai; boundary fencing was placed wrong in 1987.
- He has possessed and improved 0.44 acres of Meher Mount Corporation’s adjacent property since 1999.
- Meher Mount is a nonprofit religious organization, property used for its religious/educational purposes.
- Meher Mount qualified for a welfare exemption (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 214) for 1999–2004, thus not paying property taxes but paying mosquito assessments.
- Hagman sued in 2011 to quiet title; Meher Mount countered that it is immune from adverse possession and that Hagman need not pay taxes/assessments under CPP § 325.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Meher Mount immune from adverse possession as a public entity? | Meher Mount, as a public benefit corporation, is a public entity. | Public benefit corporations are not public entities and thus not immune. | No; Meher Mount is not immune as a public entity. |
| Does the welfare exemption preclude property tax assessment and levy for five years? | Because no taxes were assessed/levied due to exemption, Hagman need not pay. | Exemption may not preclude all tax-related duties; need to pay taxes. | Welfare exemption precludes both assessment and levy for the exempt period. |
| Is the mosquito assessment a tax under Code of Civil Procedure § 325? | If not a tax, Hagman need not pay it to perfect adverse possession. | Mosquito assessment could be considered a tax or at least an assessment with revenue purposes. | Mosquito assessment is not a tax; Hagman not required to pay it. |
| What is the effect of treating Meher Mount’s exemption on Hagman’s adverse possession claim? | Payment of non-tax assessments should not affect title determination. | Exemption status controls whether taxes were levied/assessed, affecting adverse possession. | Hagman’s adverse possession stands; exemption leads to no taxes/assessments owed. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Marcos Water Dist. v. San Marcos Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal.3d 154 (Cal. 1986) (defines tax/assessment distinctions and public entity taxation context)
- Mosk v. Summerland Spiritualist Assn., 225 Cal.App.2d 376 (Cal. App. 1964) (noting possible immunity for charitable trusts; analysis lacks statutory basis)
- Gilardi v. Hallam, 30 Cal.3d 317 (Cal. 1981) (adverse possession tax-payment requirement explicit in §325)
- Hays v. Vanek, 217 Cal.App.3d 271 (Cal. App. 1989) (sovereignty and immunity concepts in public property cases)
- Marin Healthcare Dist. v. Sutter Health, 103 Cal.App.4th 861 (Cal. App. 2002) (public entity status and immunity considerations)
- Main Street Plaza v. Cartwright & Main, LLC, 194 Cal.App.4th 1044 (Cal. App. 2011) (application of tax/assessment concepts to real property interests)