[quote=pemeliza]This guy was very blunt and basically said if you don’t agree you need to file an appeal immediately and go in front of a board that will ultimately decide the value. . . I have to say the conversation with this guy was refreshing because at least he didn’t beat around the bush.
I am seriously tempted to try and take my story to the media. I think buyers have the right to know that if they buy a REO through the normal real estate process with a buyer’s agent and bidding wars that they are still going to be under a completely different level of scrutiny by the tax assessor. I also think the realtors involved in REOs should have an obligation to disclose this potential problem to buyers. Ironically, this would add further stigma to buying REOs and probably push tax valuations down even further. To be clear we are not talking about chump change here and the additional tax grows exponentially every year.[/quote]
pemeliza, I can identify with you. I don’t believe these realtors who handle REO’s are even aware of this themselves. Perhaps this *new* method of valuation counties are using to assess properties purchased from “distress sales” will invite more (writ of mandates) lawsuits and appeals. It will be interesting to see how the law evolves over the years on this issue. However, I don’t see the any CA justice panels using PAST PRACTICE in their interpretation of the law in this area.
Counties are taking it in the shorts right now in zips where there was a preponderance of foreclosures from “bubble-era” lending. The local government has grown to accomodate the influx of population in these new areas and now has to lay off. The MR bonds only paid for police/fire/schools/libraries/parks in *their own* neighborhoods but does not compensate the overall administration of a city (or county) because it’s population has grown from <80K in 2000 to 250K+ today, such as in Chula Vista. In addition, we only have 2.5 domestic courts down here to accomodate this huge population and it now takes 18 - 24 mos. to go to trial on a domestic case and the trial hours are NOT together but divided up into two consecutive Fridays, or even further apart. It's a mess.
I know the diff. is not "chump change." The assessor has probably been told by county counsel to play "hardball" in cases where a new owner got an "awesome" deal in a coveted area to keep their most *prized* tax base "shored up."
pemeliza, has there ever been any work done on the history of property you bought? Do you think it could qualify for a Mills Act application? I know the City of SD is broke and is probably not entertaining any MA applications right now, but maybe you could start with SOHO and figure out if you have a chance in the future, should the City's coffers become more stable. Are you or any co-buyers 55 years of age or older and sold a previous property in CA they owned to buy your property?? If so, you/they may qualify for their taxes to be lowered to the assessment of the property you/they recently sold, pursuant to Propositions 60 and 90.
Just some ideas while you're playing the waiting game on appeal.
