Tivens v. Assessment Appeals Board

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, seeking judicial review of a determination of respondent Assessment Appeals Board, and alleging that the board overvalued his real property for assessment purposes thereby increasing the property tax payable by him. Respondent’s demurrer on the ground that mandate is not an appropriate remedy was sustained by the trial court without leave to amend. This appeal is from the resulting judgment.

We conclude that the action of the trial court was correct.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 provides for judicial review

[947]

through the medium of a proceeding in mandamus of final actions of administrative agencies in proceedings in which the law requires a hearing and evidence to be taken, and in which discretion in the determination of facts is vested in an “inferior tribunal, corporation, board or officer.” The sweep of section 1094.5 is limited, however, by the proposition that a writ of mandate, pursuant to its provisions, is available only where the petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.

(Grant

v.

Board of Medical Examiners,

232 Cal.App.2d 820, 826 [43 Cal.Rptr. 270].)

While in a number of older cases California courts permitted review of property tax assessments by way of mandate (see

Star-Kist Foods, Inc.

v.

Quinn,

54 Cal.2d 507, 511 [6 Cal.Rptr. 545, 354 P.2d 1], and cases there cited),

1

“[i]n more recent cases ... the adequacy of [the] remedies [of paying the resulting property tax under protest and suing for refund pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 5136 et seq.] has been considered [adequate] and mandate has been denied.”