Memora.ndum

Stat0
of Caliinia
Memora.ndum
Mr. Verne Walton, Chief
Assessment Standards Division
From
:
Subiect :
Date
t
March 20, 1992
Mr. Robert R. Keeling
Tax Counsel
Review of Your Proposed Response To Shasta County Inquiry
We have reviewed your proposed response to an inquiry from the
Shasta County Assessor regarding a taxpayer's partition of an 80
acre parcel. The three owners of the property challenged the
assessor's change in ownership reassessment saying that the
owner's partition of the 80 acres into 11 parcels was not a
change in ownership event even though the owners later
.
distributed the 11 parcels to themselves so that two of the
parties took ownership of 4 parcels each and the third party took
ownership of the remaining 3 parcels. We agree with your
analysis that such a partition of land does not constitute a
change in ownership. Your advice is well supported by Asgessors
Letter 80/84, Example 1. That example sets forth the propositionr
that one appraisal unit of property can:be=partitioned to,.its:
multiple owners without causing the property to be reassessed.
Apparently the assessor mistakenly used Example 2 which states
that two separate propertie.:,each being an appraisal unit,
cannot escape a change in ownership reassessment under the
'partition" exclusion when the two pieces of.property go from
joint ownership of both to separate ownership of each.
We understand this response was written by your staff person Mark
Nisson. Please compliment Mark for a.job well done. This
response is particularly
well written.
_---
RRK:ta
0002D
cc: Mr. John W. Hagerty
Mr. Dick Johnson
Mr. Mark Nissan
(916)
445-4982
Honorable Virginia A. Loftus
Shasta County Assessor
1500 Court Street, Room 115
Redding, California
96001
Dear
Virginia:
In your letter dated August
I
of the change
(Revenue
County
[_,.
in ownership
Assessment
conclusion
the :local
was ambiguous
The
before
subdivided
and
imnediately
in common.
transfers
gave
into
to
days
took
and the appellants
from
involved
severalty
ownership
stipulated
The
owned
ownership
that,
in terms
the Shasta
the exclusion
in reaching
board
was
its
on the
subject
asked your
of 80 acres
Before
by three
the
in four
that was
subdivision
parties
-the three
of the
of the rema\ning
that
interests,
of Equalization.
size.
ownership
property
to assessors
a parcel
equal
was
that
appeals
the subdivision,
joint
stated
however,
our letter
the Board
property
following
You
appeal:
the application
of real
concluded
80/84).
of roughly
their
parties
that
board
it, the
partitioning
the third' party
opined
assessors
11 parcels
after
62(a)(l)).
recently
clarification
us to clarify
for partitions
of a case under
the appeals
Eight
two of the
Board
:board
(letter
to request
case
Section
Appeals
to the -facts
1991 you- asked
exclusion
and Taxation.Code
applicable
office
20,
parties
11 parcels.
parcels
three
of value,
as tenants
The'partition
each,
parcels.
effected
while
The assessor
the proportional
*.- .
,
-2-
;
.
_._--;-_ . ” ,.. ,.
._ _.
ownership
Your
interest
office
a 2/3
the
concluded
change
in
subdivision
transfers.
the
original
rather
than
co-owner
that
the
of
maintained
You concluded
80 acres
would
that
have
same after
the
the
transfers.
subdivision
11 parcels.
constituted
You reasoned
that
11 separate
“appraisal
units”
of determinjng
whether
proportional
created
purposes
the
after
each _of the
for
were
remained
transfers
11 parcels
separately
interest
the
each
ownership
into
be considered
ownership
of
(as
required
for
the
to have
by Section
exclusion
to
62(a)(l))
apply
been subdivided
to
in
into
after
this
three
case.
parcels
11.
:
You stated
the
:
that
appeals -hearing
confirmed
!s:-.interpretation
of
-...-,stalff
that
you had received
board was not
Notwithstanding
in
ownership
is
that
destroy
the
consultations
Section
occurred
change
62(a)(l)
Services
Unit
prior
that
your
was consistent
with
Section
position
And,
62(a)(l).
concurrence
any previous
parcels.
our Technical
to
Board
although-you--testified
from Board stalff,
apparently
the
appeals
persuaded.
a subdivision
the
with
We will
in
advice
each
creating
in
ownership
explain
provides
that
of
the
from
Board
staff
11 subdivided
more parcels
exclusion
than
for
that
a 2/3
change
our
position
parcels,
owners
does
a subsequent
not
necessarily
partition
.
below.
a change
of
in iownership
shall
not
include:
.
!..
..C..
-3..
??
.
_
,^I..
"Any
transfer
of holding
between
title
to the real
the,proportional
interests
such as a partition
Property
change
Tax
Rule
coowner;
which
in a change
transferred
in the method
without
in that
.. .
real
changing
property,
in common."
i) prov ides that
property
is excluded
from
when:
is between
or among
,in the method
of holding
title
the proportional
interests
a partition,
"(i)
__
_
of the coowners
transfer
"The
_
results
property
of a tenancy
.
462(b)(2)(A)(
in ownership
_ -..
. .
co-owners
but does
and
results
result
not
of the co-owners,
in a change
in a change
such
in
as:
.I(
. ..:
I__.:.
California
courts
have described
llin a partition,
common -it
After
is simply
only
prior
(1938)
have
507,
partition
of title
in common
now his
it was
11 Cal.Zd
restricted
tenant
is that
as follows:
up of what
in the property
to the partition,
v. Vail
The courts
each
interest
difference
is no change
a dividing
the partition,
proportional
The
there
partition
that
the
the tenants
parties
has exactly
he had
interest
in common."
between
prior
already
in
own.
the same
thereto.
is in severalty,
while
(Ranch0
Santa
Marquer'ita
parcel:
the primary
539).
to a single
reason
-4-
for
this
is
is
,~:..
*. .... -.__-.._. I. ..‘.l....
.
that
a partition
incorporated
in
simply
divides
any co-ownership
.~.
the
method
of
“unity
of
holding
possession”
which
title:
.
“It
is
other
in
well
settled
affect
than
either
of
that
to
concept
in
possession
has no
and does
title.
was converted
180 Cal.
Vail,
736,
Board staff
vest
After
possession
v.
not
the
he had before:
supra,
into
a
page 539,
742.)
has expressed
this
single
:
:...
.,a
501 as the
partition
which
Marguerita
(1919)
termsi’,df- the
further
of
in
same title
“appraisal
unit.”
80[84~.that&s&sdrr,-value
_ _,..
.
We stated
Section
the
Santa
Potter
:.
unity
was a joint
:
v.
of judgment
any new or additional
in ownership:purposes,
assessors
unit.
the
co-tenants
(Ranch0
Bennet
change
sever
before
one.”
citing
parcel
the
which
several
For
to
a decree
each had precisely
partition.
but
that
that
“unit
property
we noted
on the
basis
in letter
of the
appraisal
., .
.
.:..
Thus,
the-- unit
:.
.
1 i kely
n&t
is defined
in Assessors’,
to be sold
as indicated
Handbook
by the analysis
:.,
of market
data.”
To elaborate
of
applying
.’
on letter
the
of
the
should
necessary
be no legal
the
number
before
from
a single
the
authority
of
assessors
exclusion
a subdivision
partition
to
parcels
not
80/84,
change
parcel,
destroy
in
the
exclusion
could
partition.
under
which
the
by the
view
ownership
or a single
owners
created
staff’s
under
appraisal
if
is
the
Further,
excltsion
would
subdivision
is
that,
Section
unit,
for
62(a)(l).
prior
subdivision
to
was
there
appears
be lost
solely
greater
purposes
than
the
to
because
number
e
.,_, (
:
‘4
,
:
.,
.,_-.
.)~.
. .
.
<._-
,_
.
.
..
.,..
-‘.-
.>
“.:-
-.
\
.
.:
L
.
\
.
.._.-___ _....
_
“.--.i.-.-.
Thus,
of owners.
one appraisal
prior
,’
of
it
clarifies
please
: ‘.
.
.
I
.
interests
the co-owners
this
will
Property
consists
subject.
Technical
of
is necessary
have met. the
conclusion
were maintained
on this
our Real
co-ownership
and a subdivision
Of course,
our position
contact
.
44+982...
that
62(a)(l).
ownership
under
subdivision,
appears
.
..w_.
i
as the, p:operty
to the
Section
proportional
questions,
_
prior
to. a partition,
I hope this
(916)
..I,.~--..~~._C._.
so long
unit
requirements
that
-
.
.’
-5
_
after
also
the
assumes
partition.
If you have any further
Services
Unit
at
_
.. .
.:. ,.”
Si ncerel y,
.
. ‘.
. .
. .. .
i., ;.:’
_.. ;.
: _~_.. .. .
.
.
.
:
., .
‘.._
Verne
Assessment
Ual ton, Chief
Standards Division
._
&
, . . . .. .
:
..
.
_.~,
,.