Lawzilla Additional Information
The Santa Clara Superior Court records indicate plaintiff Deborah Blackwell’s attorney is Bradley M. Matteoni of the law firm Matteoni O’Laughlin and Hechtman.

Demurrer to the complaint by defendant County of Santa Clara (“Defendant”)

Plaintiff Deborah Blackwell (“Blackwell”) filed a complaint against Defendant for the refund of property taxes. Blackwell alleges that she purchased a home for $525,000, but Defendant erroneously assessed the property taxes based on a purchase price of $930,000. (Compl., ¶¶ 5, 7.) In March 2013, Blackwell made a request for a refund to Defendant. (Id., ¶ 10.)

Defendant demurs to the complaint on the ground that it is barred because Blackwell failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to bringing this litigation. According to Defendant, Blackwell was required to file an application for changed assessment, appear before the County’s Assessment Appeals Board (“AAB”), and obtain a decision from the AAB prior to filing the lawsuit. By contrast, Blackwell contends that she was not required to follow this procedure because she filed her suit pursuant to Revenue and Tax Code section 5096 for an erroneous assessment. Blackwell believes that she needed only to submit a claim to the board of supervisors in advance of filing this action.

“Ordinarily a taxpayer seeking relief from an erroneous assessment must exhaust available administrative remedies before resorting to the courts.” (Stenocord Corp. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco (1970) 2 Cal.3d 984, 987 [citations omitted]; see Abeleira v. District Ct. of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 291 [under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought by the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act].) “An exception is made when the assessment is a nullity as a matter of law because, for example, the property is tax exempt, nonexistent or outside the jurisdiction [citations omitted], and no factual questions exist regarding the valuation of the property which, upon review by the board of equalization, might be resolved in the taxpayer’s favor, thereby making further litigation unnecessary.” (Stenocord, supra, 2 Cal.3d at 987 [citations omitted].) Blackwell has not alleged facts indicating that the assessment was a nullity as a matter of law, and therefore the exceptions to the requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies do not apply. Thus, Blackwell must show that she exhausted all available administrative remedies.

There are two administrative remedies that must be exhausted before a taxpayer can file a claim with the court for a tax refund for a particular year based on an over-assessment or illegal assessment. (Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. Cnty. of San Benito (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1, 34-35.) First, the taxpayer must seek a reduced assessment from the AAB by filing an application for changed assessment. (Id.) The application must be in writing, verified, and state facts justifying the reduction and supporting the taxpayer’s opinion of the full value of the property. (Rev. & Tax Code, § 1603, subd. (a).) The AAB then determines the full value of the disputed property. (Id., § 1610.8.) Second, the unsuccessful taxpayer must file an administrative claim for a refund. (Id., § 5097, subd. (a).) Only after the AAB rejects the claim for a refund may the taxpayer bring an action in the superior court. (Id., §§ 5140, 5141(a).)

In Georgie v. County of Santa Clara (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1428, the Sixth District Court of Appeal shed additional light on the administrative procedures that a taxpayer must follow before commencing a court action for a tax refund. In pertinent part, the Court stated that, because the AAB is the only body with the power to assess the value of property, a petition to the AAB is a prerequisite to a claim to the county board of supervisors for a property tax refund unless the assessment is totally void as an attempt to tax property not subject to taxation, rather than merely an inaccurate assessment of the value of taxable property. (Id. at p. 1434.)

Blackwell is seeking a reduction of an erroneous assessment of $930,000 instead of $525,000. (Compl., ¶¶ 5, 7.) The proper procedure for seeking a reduction is to file a claim pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 1603, and thereafter bring a refund action pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code sections 5140, et seq. Blackwell has not alleged that she followed this procedure. (See Compl., ¶ 10 [alleging “Blackwell made a request for a refund . . . to the County of Santa Clara”].) As a result, Blackwell has failed to establish that she exhausted her administrative remedies. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.