Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
June 1, 2010 at 7:03 PM in reply to: OT-Tipper and Al going their separate ways after 40 years #558142Participant[quote=Arraya]”the lockbox” may be the reason for the separation.[/quote]
http://www.sling.com/video/show/17858/89/Parallel-Universe
LOL!
June 1, 2010 at 7:03 PM in reply to: OT-Tipper and Al going their separate ways after 40 years #558241Participant[quote=Arraya]”the lockbox” may be the reason for the separation.[/quote]
http://www.sling.com/video/show/17858/89/Parallel-Universe
LOL!
June 1, 2010 at 7:03 PM in reply to: OT-Tipper and Al going their separate ways after 40 years #558735Participant[quote=Arraya]”the lockbox” may be the reason for the separation.[/quote]
http://www.sling.com/video/show/17858/89/Parallel-Universe
LOL!
June 1, 2010 at 7:03 PM in reply to: OT-Tipper and Al going their separate ways after 40 years #558835Participant[quote=Arraya]”the lockbox” may be the reason for the separation.[/quote]
http://www.sling.com/video/show/17858/89/Parallel-Universe
LOL!
June 1, 2010 at 7:03 PM in reply to: OT-Tipper and Al going their separate ways after 40 years #559119Participant[quote=Arraya]”the lockbox” may be the reason for the separation.[/quote]
http://www.sling.com/video/show/17858/89/Parallel-Universe
LOL!
June 1, 2010 at 5:16 PM in reply to: OT-Tipper and Al going their separate ways after 40 years #558080Participant[quote=briansd1]Not surprised that they split up. After 40 years, if you grow apart why not separate and enjoy life instead of hanging on to something that’s not there anymore?
They’ll both lose weight. Good for them. ;)[/quote]
Yes, they’ve undoubtedly been thru a lot together over the years, Brian. Even though the loss of a few lbs. would enhance Tipper’s image, she’s already tall, beautiful and young-looking. I predict she finds a partner to “hang with” before long but another marriage, uh . . . why bother??
She’ll be set for life with the division of “marital credits.” I don’t see “alimony” as part of her pkg. either.
It’s just two more highly eligible and kid-free boomers thrown into our growing singles overflowing melting pot. Should be fun to see how they do individually in the coming months/years 🙂
June 1, 2010 at 5:16 PM in reply to: OT-Tipper and Al going their separate ways after 40 years #558179Participant[quote=briansd1]Not surprised that they split up. After 40 years, if you grow apart why not separate and enjoy life instead of hanging on to something that’s not there anymore?
They’ll both lose weight. Good for them. ;)[/quote]
Yes, they’ve undoubtedly been thru a lot together over the years, Brian. Even though the loss of a few lbs. would enhance Tipper’s image, she’s already tall, beautiful and young-looking. I predict she finds a partner to “hang with” before long but another marriage, uh . . . why bother??
She’ll be set for life with the division of “marital credits.” I don’t see “alimony” as part of her pkg. either.
It’s just two more highly eligible and kid-free boomers thrown into our growing singles overflowing melting pot. Should be fun to see how they do individually in the coming months/years 🙂
June 1, 2010 at 5:16 PM in reply to: OT-Tipper and Al going their separate ways after 40 years #558672Participant[quote=briansd1]Not surprised that they split up. After 40 years, if you grow apart why not separate and enjoy life instead of hanging on to something that’s not there anymore?
They’ll both lose weight. Good for them. ;)[/quote]
Yes, they’ve undoubtedly been thru a lot together over the years, Brian. Even though the loss of a few lbs. would enhance Tipper’s image, she’s already tall, beautiful and young-looking. I predict she finds a partner to “hang with” before long but another marriage, uh . . . why bother??
She’ll be set for life with the division of “marital credits.” I don’t see “alimony” as part of her pkg. either.
It’s just two more highly eligible and kid-free boomers thrown into our growing singles overflowing melting pot. Should be fun to see how they do individually in the coming months/years 🙂
June 1, 2010 at 5:16 PM in reply to: OT-Tipper and Al going their separate ways after 40 years #558773Participant[quote=briansd1]Not surprised that they split up. After 40 years, if you grow apart why not separate and enjoy life instead of hanging on to something that’s not there anymore?
They’ll both lose weight. Good for them. ;)[/quote]
Yes, they’ve undoubtedly been thru a lot together over the years, Brian. Even though the loss of a few lbs. would enhance Tipper’s image, she’s already tall, beautiful and young-looking. I predict she finds a partner to “hang with” before long but another marriage, uh . . . why bother??
She’ll be set for life with the division of “marital credits.” I don’t see “alimony” as part of her pkg. either.
It’s just two more highly eligible and kid-free boomers thrown into our growing singles overflowing melting pot. Should be fun to see how they do individually in the coming months/years 🙂
June 1, 2010 at 5:16 PM in reply to: OT-Tipper and Al going their separate ways after 40 years #559055Participant[quote=briansd1]Not surprised that they split up. After 40 years, if you grow apart why not separate and enjoy life instead of hanging on to something that’s not there anymore?
They’ll both lose weight. Good for them. ;)[/quote]
Yes, they’ve undoubtedly been thru a lot together over the years, Brian. Even though the loss of a few lbs. would enhance Tipper’s image, she’s already tall, beautiful and young-looking. I predict she finds a partner to “hang with” before long but another marriage, uh . . . why bother??
She’ll be set for life with the division of “marital credits.” I don’t see “alimony” as part of her pkg. either.
It’s just two more highly eligible and kid-free boomers thrown into our growing singles overflowing melting pot. Should be fun to see how they do individually in the coming months/years 🙂
Participant[quote=pemeliza]I am not asking for a temporary reassessment to market value, rather I am challenging the assessment that occurred as part of the transfer of ownership last fall. As far as I know these “initial” assessments are limited to 2% a year change regardless of whether or not the market improves.
I went back and looked at all of the sales in my neighborhood going back 6 months and forward 3 months. The only way they could have possibly got the price they did was to use “turn-key” properties that were heavily upgraded which our house is not.
My personal opinion is that they are basing their estimate of value on the fact that the property tax valuation was once in the stratosphere and they just can’t accept that prices really have come down that far.
Thanks for all the advice … we plan to fight this with every means we have available.[/quote]
pemeliza, I have not sought out the exact RevTax Code in the CA legislation that applies to Adjusted Base Year Value upon filing of a Change of Ownership form (done in escrow on an “arms-length” sale),” but I believe it is entirely possible that Mission Hills was NOT AMOUNG the assessor’s parcel maps that were/are eligible for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program.” I know my area was/is eligible as some of my neighbors who are NOT Prop. 13 eligible received automatically-lowered tax bills last fall. (I did too, but mine was nearly $1000 lower due to a stipulated agreement upon appeal, foregoing my right to a hg.) My appeal was filed July 2008 and I was presented with and signed the agreement just after Thanksgiving 2009 (just before the first installment of FY 09/10 taxes were due).
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??
In any case, you have only 60 days from the postmark on your supplemental bill to file an appeal on it, so don’t let the co. appraiser string you along.
Who knows? Maybe you’ll succeed in getting your particular parcel map included in the DVAP 🙂
Participant[quote=pemeliza]I am not asking for a temporary reassessment to market value, rather I am challenging the assessment that occurred as part of the transfer of ownership last fall. As far as I know these “initial” assessments are limited to 2% a year change regardless of whether or not the market improves.
I went back and looked at all of the sales in my neighborhood going back 6 months and forward 3 months. The only way they could have possibly got the price they did was to use “turn-key” properties that were heavily upgraded which our house is not.
My personal opinion is that they are basing their estimate of value on the fact that the property tax valuation was once in the stratosphere and they just can’t accept that prices really have come down that far.
Thanks for all the advice … we plan to fight this with every means we have available.[/quote]
pemeliza, I have not sought out the exact RevTax Code in the CA legislation that applies to Adjusted Base Year Value upon filing of a Change of Ownership form (done in escrow on an “arms-length” sale),” but I believe it is entirely possible that Mission Hills was NOT AMOUNG the assessor’s parcel maps that were/are eligible for the “Decline in Value Assessment Program.” I know my area was/is eligible as some of my neighbors who are NOT Prop. 13 eligible received automatically-lowered tax bills last fall. (I did too, but mine was nearly $1000 lower due to a stipulated agreement upon appeal, foregoing my right to a hg.) My appeal was filed July 2008 and I was presented with and signed the agreement just after Thanksgiving 2009 (just before the first installment of FY 09/10 taxes were due).
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??
In any case, you have only 60 days from the postmark on your supplemental bill to file an appeal on it, so don’t let the co. appraiser string you along.
Who knows? Maybe you’ll succeed in getting your particular parcel map included in the DVAP 🙂
AuthorPosts
