REOs, prop 13, and tax assessment‎

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In addition, I do not believe the “arms-length” transactions involving trustees sales, probate sales or purchase of REOs qualifies the property for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program” if the surrounding parcel map(s) do not qualify. Do not know about short-sales but would assume they DO QUALIFY. Any Piggs know??

[/quote]

I’m a bit confused by this. I don’t think the OP is requesting a decline in value assessment. I think it’s the inital assessment usually based on the actual price he paid. I do understand how the assessor can argue that a trustee sale is at something other than fair market value or arms length. Not so with a REO. A seller who typically lists the property in MLS. A buyer who makes an offer. Open market negotiaation. (I do know the reality is sometimes a bit different.) I’m not familar with the regulations on this but it does seem unreasonable for a REO sale to not be subject to the identical property tax valuation process as any other traditional sale. Anyone have any insight?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]I’m a bit confused by this. I don’t think the OP is requesting a decline in value assessment. I think it’s the inital assessment usually based on the actual price he paid. I do understand how the assessor can argue that a trustee sale is at something other than fair market value or arms length. Not so with a REO. A seller who typically lists the property in MLS. A buyer who makes an offer. Open market negotiaation. (I do know the reality is sometimes a bit different.) I’m not familar with the regulations on this but it does seem unreasonable for a REO sale to not be subject to the identical property tax valuation process as any other traditional sale. Anyone have any insight?[/quote]

I understand what pemeliza is objecting to and why (s)he may have received a larger assessment than purchase price on her supplemental bill nine mos. after purchase. (It’s not due to the 2% per Prop 13 because those bills for FY 10/11 will not begin to be generated until approx. 9/20/10.) The new assessment kicks in upon the filing of the Change of Ownership Stmt. at COE so his/her Supp. Bill is for F/Y 09/10. I’ll call pemeliza a “she” here for illustration purposes only.

She pd. the tax in escrow for the balance of FY 9/10 but it was based upon with seller’s tax bill. She thought she would be due a refund for the amt. she pd. (diff. between the seller’s tax bill and what her portion of the tax bill was, based on her lower purch. price) and instead rec’d a supp. bill (which ate up some or all of her “overpayment” she made in escrow).

Does that make sense??

I was searching various large counties in CA for their practices in this area when I got sidetracked.

I have combed the CA RevTax Code and cannot find a provision which allows a county assessor to reassess upon Change of Ownership (new Base Year Reassessment) on criteria other than sales price. That’s not to say it isn’t there, but I’m bleary-eyed right now.

See bottom of pg 2: http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub772.pdf (dealing with deed-in-lieu transactions).

Since she posted that other nearby REO purchasers were affected as well, it could also be that MH WAS eligible for the DVAP in FY 08/09 so now they are “catching up” in the form of an “escape tax” added to new supplemental bills for the affected parcels.

Pemeliza, could it be that the prev. owner who lost the property to foreclosure had successfully appealed their assessment and was given a lowered assessment (which you pd. tax from in escrow) and thus your new supplemental bill includes a catch-up “escape tax?”

See: http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=82198&pr…

Are the taxes you paid in escrow enough to cover your supplemental bill?

Guess we don’t have enough info here to be able to determine how the assessor valued your property upon change of ownership.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]I’m a bit confused by this. I don’t think the OP is requesting a decline in value assessment. I think it’s the inital assessment usually based on the actual price he paid. I do understand how the assessor can argue that a trustee sale is at something other than fair market value or arms length. Not so with a REO. A seller who typically lists the property in MLS. A buyer who makes an offer. Open market negotiaation. (I do know the reality is sometimes a bit different.) I’m not familar with the regulations on this but it does seem unreasonable for a REO sale to not be subject to the identical property tax valuation process as any other traditional sale. Anyone have any insight?[/quote]

I understand what pemeliza is objecting to and why (s)he may have received a larger assessment than purchase price on her supplemental bill nine mos. after purchase. (It’s not due to the 2% per Prop 13 because those bills for FY 10/11 will not begin to be generated until approx. 9/20/10.) The new assessment kicks in upon the filing of the Change of Ownership Stmt. at COE so his/her Supp. Bill is for F/Y 09/10. I’ll call pemeliza a “she” here for illustration purposes only.

She pd. the tax in escrow for the balance of FY 9/10 but it was based upon with seller’s tax bill. She thought she would be due a refund for the amt. she pd. (diff. between the seller’s tax bill and what her portion of the tax bill was, based on her lower purch. price) and instead rec’d a supp. bill (which ate up some or all of her “overpayment” she made in escrow).

Does that make sense??

I was searching various large counties in CA for their practices in this area when I got sidetracked.

I have combed the CA RevTax Code and cannot find a provision which allows a county assessor to reassess upon Change of Ownership (new Base Year Reassessment) on criteria other than sales price. That’s not to say it isn’t there, but I’m bleary-eyed right now.

See bottom of pg 2: http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub772.pdf (dealing with deed-in-lieu transactions).

Since she posted that other nearby REO purchasers were affected as well, it could also be that MH WAS eligible for the DVAP in FY 08/09 so now they are “catching up” in the form of an “escape tax” added to new supplemental bills for the affected parcels.

Pemeliza, could it be that the prev. owner who lost the property to foreclosure had successfully appealed their assessment and was given a lowered assessment (which you pd. tax from in escrow) and thus your new supplemental bill includes a catch-up “escape tax?”

See: http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=82198&pr…

Are the taxes you paid in escrow enough to cover your supplemental bill?

Guess we don’t have enough info here to be able to determine how the assessor valued your property upon change of ownership.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]I’m a bit confused by this. I don’t think the OP is requesting a decline in value assessment. I think it’s the inital assessment usually based on the actual price he paid. I do understand how the assessor can argue that a trustee sale is at something other than fair market value or arms length. Not so with a REO. A seller who typically lists the property in MLS. A buyer who makes an offer. Open market negotiaation. (I do know the reality is sometimes a bit different.) I’m not familar with the regulations on this but it does seem unreasonable for a REO sale to not be subject to the identical property tax valuation process as any other traditional sale. Anyone have any insight?[/quote]

I understand what pemeliza is objecting to and why (s)he may have received a larger assessment than purchase price on her supplemental bill nine mos. after purchase. (It’s not due to the 2% per Prop 13 because those bills for FY 10/11 will not begin to be generated until approx. 9/20/10.) The new assessment kicks in upon the filing of the Change of Ownership Stmt. at COE so his/her Supp. Bill is for F/Y 09/10. I’ll call pemeliza a “she” here for illustration purposes only.

She pd. the tax in escrow for the balance of FY 9/10 but it was based upon with seller’s tax bill. She thought she would be due a refund for the amt. she pd. (diff. between the seller’s tax bill and what her portion of the tax bill was, based on her lower purch. price) and instead rec’d a supp. bill (which ate up some or all of her “overpayment” she made in escrow).

Does that make sense??

I was searching various large counties in CA for their practices in this area when I got sidetracked.

I have combed the CA RevTax Code and cannot find a provision which allows a county assessor to reassess upon Change of Ownership (new Base Year Reassessment) on criteria other than sales price. That’s not to say it isn’t there, but I’m bleary-eyed right now.

See bottom of pg 2: http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub772.pdf (dealing with deed-in-lieu transactions).

Since she posted that other nearby REO purchasers were affected as well, it could also be that MH WAS eligible for the DVAP in FY 08/09 so now they are “catching up” in the form of an “escape tax” added to new supplemental bills for the affected parcels.

Pemeliza, could it be that the prev. owner who lost the property to foreclosure had successfully appealed their assessment and was given a lowered assessment (which you pd. tax from in escrow) and thus your new supplemental bill includes a catch-up “escape tax?”

See: http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=82198&pr…

Are the taxes you paid in escrow enough to cover your supplemental bill?

Guess we don’t have enough info here to be able to determine how the assessor valued your property upon change of ownership.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]I’m a bit confused by this. I don’t think the OP is requesting a decline in value assessment. I think it’s the inital assessment usually based on the actual price he paid. I do understand how the assessor can argue that a trustee sale is at something other than fair market value or arms length. Not so with a REO. A seller who typically lists the property in MLS. A buyer who makes an offer. Open market negotiaation. (I do know the reality is sometimes a bit different.) I’m not familar with the regulations on this but it does seem unreasonable for a REO sale to not be subject to the identical property tax valuation process as any other traditional sale. Anyone have any insight?[/quote]

I understand what pemeliza is objecting to and why (s)he may have received a larger assessment than purchase price on her supplemental bill nine mos. after purchase. (It’s not due to the 2% per Prop 13 because those bills for FY 10/11 will not begin to be generated until approx. 9/20/10.) The new assessment kicks in upon the filing of the Change of Ownership Stmt. at COE so his/her Supp. Bill is for F/Y 09/10. I’ll call pemeliza a “she” here for illustration purposes only.

She pd. the tax in escrow for the balance of FY 9/10 but it was based upon with seller’s tax bill. She thought she would be due a refund for the amt. she pd. (diff. between the seller’s tax bill and what her portion of the tax bill was, based on her lower purch. price) and instead rec’d a supp. bill (which ate up some or all of her “overpayment” she made in escrow).

Does that make sense??

I was searching various large counties in CA for their practices in this area when I got sidetracked.

I have combed the CA RevTax Code and cannot find a provision which allows a county assessor to reassess upon Change of Ownership (new Base Year Reassessment) on criteria other than sales price. That’s not to say it isn’t there, but I’m bleary-eyed right now.

See bottom of pg 2: http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub772.pdf (dealing with deed-in-lieu transactions).

Since she posted that other nearby REO purchasers were affected as well, it could also be that MH WAS eligible for the DVAP in FY 08/09 so now they are “catching up” in the form of an “escape tax” added to new supplemental bills for the affected parcels.

Pemeliza, could it be that the prev. owner who lost the property to foreclosure had successfully appealed their assessment and was given a lowered assessment (which you pd. tax from in escrow) and thus your new supplemental bill includes a catch-up “escape tax?”

See: http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=82198&pr…

Are the taxes you paid in escrow enough to cover your supplemental bill?

Guess we don’t have enough info here to be able to determine how the assessor valued your property upon change of ownership.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]I’m a bit confused by this. I don’t think the OP is requesting a decline in value assessment. I think it’s the inital assessment usually based on the actual price he paid. I do understand how the assessor can argue that a trustee sale is at something other than fair market value or arms length. Not so with a REO. A seller who typically lists the property in MLS. A buyer who makes an offer. Open market negotiaation. (I do know the reality is sometimes a bit different.) I’m not familar with the regulations on this but it does seem unreasonable for a REO sale to not be subject to the identical property tax valuation process as any other traditional sale. Anyone have any insight?[/quote]

I understand what pemeliza is objecting to and why (s)he may have received a larger assessment than purchase price on her supplemental bill nine mos. after purchase. (It’s not due to the 2% per Prop 13 because those bills for FY 10/11 will not begin to be generated until approx. 9/20/10.) The new assessment kicks in upon the filing of the Change of Ownership Stmt. at COE so his/her Supp. Bill is for F/Y 09/10. I’ll call pemeliza a “she” here for illustration purposes only.

She pd. the tax in escrow for the balance of FY 9/10 but it was based upon with seller’s tax bill. She thought she would be due a refund for the amt. she pd. (diff. between the seller’s tax bill and what her portion of the tax bill was, based on her lower purch. price) and instead rec’d a supp. bill (which ate up some or all of her “overpayment” she made in escrow).

Does that make sense??

I was searching various large counties in CA for their practices in this area when I got sidetracked.

I have combed the CA RevTax Code and cannot find a provision which allows a county assessor to reassess upon Change of Ownership (new Base Year Reassessment) on criteria other than sales price. That’s not to say it isn’t there, but I’m bleary-eyed right now.

See bottom of pg 2: http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub772.pdf (dealing with deed-in-lieu transactions).

Since she posted that other nearby REO purchasers were affected as well, it could also be that MH WAS eligible for the DVAP in FY 08/09 so now they are “catching up” in the form of an “escape tax” added to new supplemental bills for the affected parcels.

Pemeliza, could it be that the prev. owner who lost the property to foreclosure had successfully appealed their assessment and was given a lowered assessment (which you pd. tax from in escrow) and thus your new supplemental bill includes a catch-up “escape tax?”

See: http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=82198&pr…

Are the taxes you paid in escrow enough to cover your supplemental bill?

Guess we don’t have enough info here to be able to determine how the assessor valued your property upon change of ownership.

[CA renter]

From the State BOE site (bold is mine):

…(a) In addition to the meaning ascribed to them in the Revenue and Taxation Code, the words “full value”, “full
cash value”, “cash value”, “actual value”, and “fair market value” mean the price at which a property, if exposed
for sale in the open market with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or its
equivalent under prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the
property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the
exigencies of the other.
When applied to real property, the words “full value”, “full cash value”, cash value”, “actual value” and “fair market
value” mean the price at which the unencumbered or unrestricted fee simple interest in the real property (subject
to any legally enforceable governmental restrictions) would transfer for cash or its equivalent under the conditions
set forth in the preceding sentence.
(b) When valuing real property (as described in paragraph (a) as the result of a change in ownership (as defined
in Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 60, et seq.) for consideration, it shall be rebuttably presumed that the
consideration valued in money, whether paid in money or otherwise, is the full cash value of the property. The
presumption shall shift the burden of proving value by a preponderance of the evidence to the party seeking to
overcome the presumption. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the full cash value of the property
is significantly more or less than the total cash equivalent of the consideration paid for the property. A significant
deviation means a deviation of more than 5% of the total consideration.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/r2.pdf
———————–

BG,

I know you’re well informed about this topic, but I’ve never heard anything about the previous owner’s assessment having any bearing on the new owner’s assessment. IOW, this should have nothing to do with the DVAP. Am I missing something?

It sounds to me like Pemeliza has a solid argument against this “fake” assessment. The property taxes should be based on the sales price, not on some value the Assessor’s office “wants” it to be.

[CA renter]

From the State BOE site (bold is mine):

…(a) In addition to the meaning ascribed to them in the Revenue and Taxation Code, the words “full value”, “full
cash value”, “cash value”, “actual value”, and “fair market value” mean the price at which a property, if exposed
for sale in the open market with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or its
equivalent under prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the
property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the
exigencies of the other.
When applied to real property, the words “full value”, “full cash value”, cash value”, “actual value” and “fair market
value” mean the price at which the unencumbered or unrestricted fee simple interest in the real property (subject
to any legally enforceable governmental restrictions) would transfer for cash or its equivalent under the conditions
set forth in the preceding sentence.
(b) When valuing real property (as described in paragraph (a) as the result of a change in ownership (as defined
in Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 60, et seq.) for consideration, it shall be rebuttably presumed that the
consideration valued in money, whether paid in money or otherwise, is the full cash value of the property. The
presumption shall shift the burden of proving value by a preponderance of the evidence to the party seeking to
overcome the presumption. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the full cash value of the property
is significantly more or less than the total cash equivalent of the consideration paid for the property. A significant
deviation means a deviation of more than 5% of the total consideration.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/r2.pdf
———————–

BG,

I know you’re well informed about this topic, but I’ve never heard anything about the previous owner’s assessment having any bearing on the new owner’s assessment. IOW, this should have nothing to do with the DVAP. Am I missing something?

It sounds to me like Pemeliza has a solid argument against this “fake” assessment. The property taxes should be based on the sales price, not on some value the Assessor’s office “wants” it to be.

[CA renter]

From the State BOE site (bold is mine):

…(a) In addition to the meaning ascribed to them in the Revenue and Taxation Code, the words “full value”, “full
cash value”, “cash value”, “actual value”, and “fair market value” mean the price at which a property, if exposed
for sale in the open market with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or its
equivalent under prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the
property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the
exigencies of the other.
When applied to real property, the words “full value”, “full cash value”, cash value”, “actual value” and “fair market
value” mean the price at which the unencumbered or unrestricted fee simple interest in the real property (subject
to any legally enforceable governmental restrictions) would transfer for cash or its equivalent under the conditions
set forth in the preceding sentence.
(b) When valuing real property (as described in paragraph (a) as the result of a change in ownership (as defined
in Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 60, et seq.) for consideration, it shall be rebuttably presumed that the
consideration valued in money, whether paid in money or otherwise, is the full cash value of the property. The
presumption shall shift the burden of proving value by a preponderance of the evidence to the party seeking to
overcome the presumption. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the full cash value of the property
is significantly more or less than the total cash equivalent of the consideration paid for the property. A significant
deviation means a deviation of more than 5% of the total consideration.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/r2.pdf
———————–

BG,

I know you’re well informed about this topic, but I’ve never heard anything about the previous owner’s assessment having any bearing on the new owner’s assessment. IOW, this should have nothing to do with the DVAP. Am I missing something?

It sounds to me like Pemeliza has a solid argument against this “fake” assessment. The property taxes should be based on the sales price, not on some value the Assessor’s office “wants” it to be.

[CA renter]

From the State BOE site (bold is mine):

…(a) In addition to the meaning ascribed to them in the Revenue and Taxation Code, the words “full value”, “full
cash value”, “cash value”, “actual value”, and “fair market value” mean the price at which a property, if exposed
for sale in the open market with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or its
equivalent under prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the
property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the
exigencies of the other.
When applied to real property, the words “full value”, “full cash value”, cash value”, “actual value” and “fair market
value” mean the price at which the unencumbered or unrestricted fee simple interest in the real property (subject
to any legally enforceable governmental restrictions) would transfer for cash or its equivalent under the conditions
set forth in the preceding sentence.
(b) When valuing real property (as described in paragraph (a) as the result of a change in ownership (as defined
in Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 60, et seq.) for consideration, it shall be rebuttably presumed that the
consideration valued in money, whether paid in money or otherwise, is the full cash value of the property. The
presumption shall shift the burden of proving value by a preponderance of the evidence to the party seeking to
overcome the presumption. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the full cash value of the property
is significantly more or less than the total cash equivalent of the consideration paid for the property. A significant
deviation means a deviation of more than 5% of the total consideration.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/r2.pdf
———————–

BG,

I know you’re well informed about this topic, but I’ve never heard anything about the previous owner’s assessment having any bearing on the new owner’s assessment. IOW, this should have nothing to do with the DVAP. Am I missing something?

It sounds to me like Pemeliza has a solid argument against this “fake” assessment. The property taxes should be based on the sales price, not on some value the Assessor’s office “wants” it to be.

[CA renter]

From the State BOE site (bold is mine):

…(a) In addition to the meaning ascribed to them in the Revenue and Taxation Code, the words “full value”, “full
cash value”, “cash value”, “actual value”, and “fair market value” mean the price at which a property, if exposed
for sale in the open market with a reasonable time for the seller to find a purchaser, would transfer for cash or its
equivalent under prevailing market conditions between parties who have knowledge of the uses to which the
property may be put, both seeking to maximize their gains and neither being in a position to take advantage of the
exigencies of the other.
When applied to real property, the words “full value”, “full cash value”, cash value”, “actual value” and “fair market
value” mean the price at which the unencumbered or unrestricted fee simple interest in the real property (subject
to any legally enforceable governmental restrictions) would transfer for cash or its equivalent under the conditions
set forth in the preceding sentence.
(b) When valuing real property (as described in paragraph (a) as the result of a change in ownership (as defined
in Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 60, et seq.) for consideration, it shall be rebuttably presumed that the
consideration valued in money, whether paid in money or otherwise, is the full cash value of the property. The
presumption shall shift the burden of proving value by a preponderance of the evidence to the party seeking to
overcome the presumption. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the full cash value of the property
is significantly more or less than the total cash equivalent of the consideration paid for the property. A significant
deviation means a deviation of more than 5% of the total consideration.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/r2.pdf
———————–

BG,

I know you’re well informed about this topic, but I’ve never heard anything about the previous owner’s assessment having any bearing on the new owner’s assessment. IOW, this should have nothing to do with the DVAP. Am I missing something?

It sounds to me like Pemeliza has a solid argument against this “fake” assessment. The property taxes should be based on the sales price, not on some value the Assessor’s office “wants” it to be.

[pemeliza]

BG, the issue is the new assessed value on the supplemental tax bill. I will give an example to illustrate that this is definitely happening but I don’t know how widespread it is. I will not give the address or owner’s name of the example but I will say the following applies to a property in Mission Hills. This information is freely available on the web for all to see.

I will start with a sales history taken from zillow.com

03/27/2009 Sold $665,000 -2.2% Public Record

02/07/2009 Listed for sale* $679,999 -31.7% NRT Califo

03/07/2005 Sold $995,000 53.8% Public Record

06/17/2002 Sold $647,000 68.5% Public Record

02/04/1994 Sold $384,000 — Public Record

Next, I give the first part of the description used for the listing to show that this is indeed a REO.

“BANK OWNED! 3 BR/3 BA contemporary home in wonderful Mission Hills. ”

So far we know that the buyer of this house got a good deal basically paying a 2002 price in a prime area. But notice at the time there wasn’t even that much demand as the buyer didn’t even have to pay full price.

Now we get to the supplemental bill generated by the property transfer which is also available online.

“This is a supplemental tax bill on the above described property per R&T code section 75. This is a notice of value change on 03/27/09. This bill was mailed on 10/9/2009.”

New Assessed Value 600000 200000 800000
Prior Tax Rolls Value 600000 200000 800000
Increase In Assessment 0 0 0

We see that the supplemental bill matches the sale date but the new assessed value was unchanged. It was not lowered to reflect the sales price of $665k. It was lowered to 800k before this sale apparently as some type of automatic reassessment.

I don’t know what the final result will be for this particular house and have no idea if the owner even challenged this assessment. But I can say that there have been no new supplemental bills for this parcel that I can find and the assessed value according to zillow is still set to 800k.

I put up this information to illustrate that this is happening and buyer beware.

[pemeliza]

BG, the issue is the new assessed value on the supplemental tax bill. I will give an example to illustrate that this is definitely happening but I don’t know how widespread it is. I will not give the address or owner’s name of the example but I will say the following applies to a property in Mission Hills. This information is freely available on the web for all to see.

I will start with a sales history taken from zillow.com

03/27/2009 Sold $665,000 -2.2% Public Record

02/07/2009 Listed for sale* $679,999 -31.7% NRT Califo

03/07/2005 Sold $995,000 53.8% Public Record

06/17/2002 Sold $647,000 68.5% Public Record

02/04/1994 Sold $384,000 — Public Record

Next, I give the first part of the description used for the listing to show that this is indeed a REO.

“BANK OWNED! 3 BR/3 BA contemporary home in wonderful Mission Hills. ”

So far we know that the buyer of this house got a good deal basically paying a 2002 price in a prime area. But notice at the time there wasn’t even that much demand as the buyer didn’t even have to pay full price.

Now we get to the supplemental bill generated by the property transfer which is also available online.

“This is a supplemental tax bill on the above described property per R&T code section 75. This is a notice of value change on 03/27/09. This bill was mailed on 10/9/2009.”

New Assessed Value 600000 200000 800000
Prior Tax Rolls Value 600000 200000 800000
Increase In Assessment 0 0 0

We see that the supplemental bill matches the sale date but the new assessed value was unchanged. It was not lowered to reflect the sales price of $665k. It was lowered to 800k before this sale apparently as some type of automatic reassessment.

I don’t know what the final result will be for this particular house and have no idea if the owner even challenged this assessment. But I can say that there have been no new supplemental bills for this parcel that I can find and the assessed value according to zillow is still set to 800k.

I put up this information to illustrate that this is happening and buyer beware.

[pemeliza]

BG, the issue is the new assessed value on the supplemental tax bill. I will give an example to illustrate that this is definitely happening but I don’t know how widespread it is. I will not give the address or owner’s name of the example but I will say the following applies to a property in Mission Hills. This information is freely available on the web for all to see.

I will start with a sales history taken from zillow.com

03/27/2009 Sold $665,000 -2.2% Public Record

02/07/2009 Listed for sale* $679,999 -31.7% NRT Califo

03/07/2005 Sold $995,000 53.8% Public Record

06/17/2002 Sold $647,000 68.5% Public Record

02/04/1994 Sold $384,000 — Public Record

Next, I give the first part of the description used for the listing to show that this is indeed a REO.

“BANK OWNED! 3 BR/3 BA contemporary home in wonderful Mission Hills. ”

So far we know that the buyer of this house got a good deal basically paying a 2002 price in a prime area. But notice at the time there wasn’t even that much demand as the buyer didn’t even have to pay full price.

Now we get to the supplemental bill generated by the property transfer which is also available online.

“This is a supplemental tax bill on the above described property per R&T code section 75. This is a notice of value change on 03/27/09. This bill was mailed on 10/9/2009.”

New Assessed Value 600000 200000 800000
Prior Tax Rolls Value 600000 200000 800000
Increase In Assessment 0 0 0

We see that the supplemental bill matches the sale date but the new assessed value was unchanged. It was not lowered to reflect the sales price of $665k. It was lowered to 800k before this sale apparently as some type of automatic reassessment.

I don’t know what the final result will be for this particular house and have no idea if the owner even challenged this assessment. But I can say that there have been no new supplemental bills for this parcel that I can find and the assessed value according to zillow is still set to 800k.

I put up this information to illustrate that this is happening and buyer beware.

[pemeliza]

BG, the issue is the new assessed value on the supplemental tax bill. I will give an example to illustrate that this is definitely happening but I don’t know how widespread it is. I will not give the address or owner’s name of the example but I will say the following applies to a property in Mission Hills. This information is freely available on the web for all to see.

I will start with a sales history taken from zillow.com

03/27/2009 Sold $665,000 -2.2% Public Record

02/07/2009 Listed for sale* $679,999 -31.7% NRT Califo

03/07/2005 Sold $995,000 53.8% Public Record

06/17/2002 Sold $647,000 68.5% Public Record

02/04/1994 Sold $384,000 — Public Record

Next, I give the first part of the description used for the listing to show that this is indeed a REO.

“BANK OWNED! 3 BR/3 BA contemporary home in wonderful Mission Hills. ”

So far we know that the buyer of this house got a good deal basically paying a 2002 price in a prime area. But notice at the time there wasn’t even that much demand as the buyer didn’t even have to pay full price.

Now we get to the supplemental bill generated by the property transfer which is also available online.

“This is a supplemental tax bill on the above described property per R&T code section 75. This is a notice of value change on 03/27/09. This bill was mailed on 10/9/2009.”

New Assessed Value 600000 200000 800000
Prior Tax Rolls Value 600000 200000 800000
Increase In Assessment 0 0 0

We see that the supplemental bill matches the sale date but the new assessed value was unchanged. It was not lowered to reflect the sales price of $665k. It was lowered to 800k before this sale apparently as some type of automatic reassessment.

I don’t know what the final result will be for this particular house and have no idea if the owner even challenged this assessment. But I can say that there have been no new supplemental bills for this parcel that I can find and the assessed value according to zillow is still set to 800k.

I put up this information to illustrate that this is happening and buyer beware.

[Author]

Posts