Walton v. County of Lake CA1/1

Filed 8/24/16 Walton v. County of Lake CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

MICHAEL JOHN WALTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, A144384 v. COUNTY OF LAKE, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CV411927) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Michael Walton has been fighting tax liens and tax sales by Lake County for some years.1 In an earlier appeal, this court affirmed a judgment denying Walton’s mandamus challenge to resolutions passed by the Lake County Board of Supervisors authorizing the sale of tax-defaulted properties, including properties then owned by Walton and subject to tax liens (appeal No. A126903). In September 2012, Walton filed the instant action against the county and individual supervisors. In his first cause of action for “fraud,” Walton alleged the individual supervisors acted “illegally” by violating the bankruptcy laws and by ordering the county tax collector to post a “false” date of sale for the properties. Walton maintained the supervisors caused the tax collector to post a “false” date of sale because the trial court incorrectly ruled against him in the mandamus action (a ruling Walton claimed was “corrupt” and reflected “bias in favor of the county”) and this court wrongfully ignored pivotal evidence and “upheld the corrupt trial court ruling.” In his

1 This appeal is appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1(1), (3). 1

second cause of action for “negligence,” Walton incorporated his prior allegations and claimed the supervisors had been “emboldened by the corrupt” court rulings and prevented the county auditor from cancelling the tax lines “until approximately one month” before the scheduled sale date. He further alleged he had filed another lawsuit against the county that was pending and in which the trial judge had “corruptly” sustained a demurrer, apparently in asserted violation of the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. In his third cause of action for “emotional distress,” Walton again incorporated all prior allegations and claimed defendants’ acts had caused him severe emotional distress. In his claim for relief, Walton sought, among other things, “[s]pecial damages” for the dismissal of two other lawsuits against contractors for “trespass” onto two of the properties subject to tax liens that apparently had been sold. After filing an answer denying virtually all of Walton’s allegations, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on collateral estoppel and jurisdictional grounds. To the extent Walton was challenging the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the automatic stay, that order was final and conclusive and barred Walton from challenging either its validity or the actions of defendants in reliance on it. Further, only the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of violation of the stay. To the extent Walton was continuing to attack the underlying liens and resolution authorizing sale of the properties, the judgment in Walton’s prior mandamus action was also final and conclusive and barred further challenges to the county’s actions. In support of their motion, defendants filed an extensive request for judicial notice, including the county’s motion for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay and the federal court’s memorandum ruling and its order granting the motion.2 The court observed that the bankruptcy proceeding, Walton’s eighth, was “like all the previous filings” “merely a delaying tactic” to avoid the tax lien sales. In its memorandum, the