Boisvert v. County of Alameda etc. CA1/3

Filed 1/23/14 Boisvert v. County of Alameda etc. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

RENE BOISVERT, Plaintiff and Appellant, A138190 v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA (Alameda County COUNTY OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR, Super. Ct. No. RG12617211) ALAMEDA COUNTY APPEALS BOARD, Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Rene Boisvert appeals in propria persona from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against him in a tax assessment dispute with Alameda County. The trial court concluded that Boisvert lacked standing and the court lacked jurisdiction. Because Boisvert’s argument fails to articulate any errors committed by the trial court when it granted summary judgment, we affirm. Background In an amended complaint filed in May 2012, Boisvert sued the County of Alameda, its tax assessor, and Assessment Appeals Board (collectively hereafter as “the County”) seeking a tax refund. He claimed the County wrongly assessed a taxable value of $339,600 for three parcels of adjacent real property he described as “13,300 square feet of vacant, toxic contaminated land” located in Oakland (hereafter “the Property”). A limited liability company named “800 Center LLC” (hereafter “800 Center”) owned the

1

Property, and Boisvert claimed to be its “managing member.” He alleged that he paid all assessed taxes on the Property. Boisvert alleged the County’s assessment methodology was flawed by “failing to properly account for the full reduction in market value caused by certain toxic contamination” on the Property. He claimed that he appealed to the County’s Assessment Appeals Board each September from 2007 through 2011 for a change in assessment (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 1603)1 for the Property for fiscal tax years 2005-2006 through 2009-2010. He claimed his challenges to assessments for tax years 2005-2006 through 2008-2009 were denied, but the County granted his fifth application and reduced the assessed value of the land to $245,000 for year 2009-2010. He was not issued a refund for any preceding years. Boisvert sought a retroactive reduction of the Property’s assessed value for years 2005-2006 through 2008-2009 to $0, a refund of $38,762.17 in excess taxes paid, and litigation expenses. He included copies of three County-issued tax statements as exhibits to his complaint. On September 18, 2012, the County moved for summary judgment, alleging it was undisputed that Boisvert failed to state a cause of action. Specifically, the County claimed Boisvert had not paid the taxes on the Property as required by section 51402, he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by section 5142, 3 and the court had no power to grant the relief he requested per section 4807. 4 1 All statutory references are to the Revenue and Taxation Code unless otherwise noted. 2 Section 5140, titled “Standing to bring action against city or county for tax refund,” states in pertinent part: “[t]he person who paid the tax . . . may bring an action only in the superior court . . . against a county or a city to recover a tax which the board of supervisors of the county or the city council of the city has refused to refund on a claim filed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5096) of this chapter. No other person may bring such an action; but if another should do so, judgment shall not be rendered for the plaintiff.” 3 Section 5142, subdivision (a), states in pertinent part: “[n]o action shall be commenced or maintained under this article . . . unless a claim for refund has first been filed.” 4 Section 4807 states in pertinent part: “[n]o injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action, or proceeding in any court against any county, municipality, or district, or any officer thereof, to prevent or enjoin the collection of property taxes sought to be collected.”