Red Bluff Developers v. Tehama County
Citation | 258 Cal.App.2d 668,66 Cal.Rptr. 229 |
Parties | RED BLUFF DEVELOPERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF TEHAMA, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 11582. |
Decision Date | 06 February 1968 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Rawlins Coffman & Noel Watkins, by Rawlins Coffman, Red Bluff, for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert W. Trimble, Dist. Atty., by Elmer R. Jennings, Deputy Dist. Atty., Red Bluff, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff was the record owner of reserved oil, gas and other hydrocarbon rights which had been assessed by the assessor of Tehama County. It paid the taxes under protest and commenced this action to recover the sums so paid, and appeals from the judgment for defendant.
By stipulation of counsel, this cause was submitted to the trial court on the record, which includes the transcript of the proceedings before the Board of Supervisors of Tehama County sitting as a board of equalization, which denied plaintiff's application for reduction of this assessment.
Plaintiff, a California Corporation, purchased 365 acres in Tehama County for development. This land was then subdivided into 59 lots averaging five to six acres each.
At the time plaintiff purchased this property, Humble Oil had an oil lease on the land for which it paid $1 an acre. This lease was cancelled shortly after plaintiff purchased the property. Although the surrounding area had been explored for gas and oil, nothing was developed and drilling was abandoned.
When plaintiff sold the lots to private buyers, it reserved the oil and gas rights as to some of the lots. The policy of plaintiff corporation was to deed the mineral rights to buyers if they asked for them and to retain the rights if they did not request them. The same price was charged for a lot whether plaintiff reserved the rights or it did not.
In 1963 and 1964, the county assessed the mineral value of the lots in which plaintiff retained the mineral rights at $60 each, or a true value of $240. At the hearing before the board of supervisors sitting as a board of equalization, the secretary of the corporation, T.C. Manning, stated that the mineral rights had no value. The county assessor know of no market value for the minerals. The assessor testified that the $3.35 tax actually represented his costs of billing, posting and assessing, i.e., his book work.
Plaintiff's application for reduction of the assessed valuation of its property was denied by the board of supervisors sitting as a board of equalization. The trial court, finding that there was no fraud or malicious abuse of power by the assessor, held for defendant county and ruled that the assessment must stand.
'Property' subject to taxation in this state is defined by the code as including 'all matters and things, real, personal, and mixed, capable of private ownership.' (Rev. and Tax. Code, § 103.) 'Real property' includes 'all mines, minerals, and quarries in the land * * * and all rights and privileges appertaining thereto.' (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 104, subd. (b); see also Rev. & Tax. Code, § 607.5.) 'Possessory interests,' also subject to taxation, means, 'possession of, claim to, or right to the possession of land * * *.' (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 107.)
In California a possessory interest or a leasehold interest in mineral lands is subject to taxation, however such an interest is characterized. (Delaney v. Lowery, 25 Cal.2d 561, 154 P.2d 674; Graciosa Oil Co. v. Santa Barbara, 155 Cal. 140, 99 P. 483; State of California v. Moore, 12 Cal. 56; Los Angeles County v. Continental Corp., 113 Cal.App.2d 207, 226, 248 P.2d 157; see 23 So.Cal.L.Rev. 169, 170.)
Here the grantor reserved the mineral rights and thus expressly kept an estate in fee in itself.
(Nevada Irr. Dist. v. Keystone Copper Corp., 224 Cal.App.2d 523, 527, 36 Cal.Rptr. 775, 778.)
In Merchants Trust Co. v. Hopkins, 103 Cal.App. 473, 481--482, 284 P. 1072, 1075 the court, in comment on appellant's interest in coal and mineral rights, states: (Emphasis added.)
Plaintiff argues, however, that the mineral rights had no known value and hence it was impossible to assign an assessed value to them. In conjunction therewith he contends that the assessor fixed the assessed value at an arbitrary dollar amount by formula designed to result in the payment of a tax thereon equal to the cost of billing, posting and assessing.
'* * * The Revenue And Taxation Code requires that 'all taxable property shall be assessed at its full cash value' (sec. 401), which means 'the amount at which property would be taken in payment of a just debt from a solvent debtor. '
It is the rule applicable to assessors and to boards having assessing powers that it is presumed that the assessing officers have properly performed the duties entrusted to them and, consequently, that the assessments are both regularly and correctly made. (Utah Construction Co. v. Richardson, supra, 187 Cal. at p. 654, 203 P. 401.) As the court stated in Los Angeles Etc., Co. v. County of L.A., 162 Cal. 164, at pages 167--168, 121 P. 384, at page 385, 9 A.L.R. 1277:
Thus, before taxes can be set aside where they are claimed to be excessive, there must be evidence to show that the assessments were fraudulently or mistakenly made, or that an improper method of valuation was pursued. (Utah Construction Co. v. Richardson, supra, 187 Cal. at p. 655, 203 P. 401; Miller & Lux v. Richardson, 182...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gerhard v. Stephens
......Diablo base and meridian, in San Benito County (section 31). They claimed these interests as successors of stockholders ...775 (nonfugacious minerals); Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama (1968) 258 A.C.A. 767, 770--771, 66 ......
-
Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. County of Alameda, HUNT-WESSON
...... (See De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 45 Cal.2d 546, 565, 290 P.2d 544; Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 674--675, 66 Cal.Rptr. 229; County of Amador v. ......
-
Midstate Theatres, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus
......] that the legal presumption is that 'assessments are both regularly and correctly made' (Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 673, 66 Cal.Rptr. 229, 232.) In other ......
-
White v. State
...... State') to quiet title and establish boundaries to certain Sonoma County real property. Plaintiffs recovered judgment as prayed for and the State ... (Damiani v. Albert, 48 Cal.2d 15, 18, 306 P.2d 780; Red Bluff Developers v. Tehama County, 258 Cal.App.2d 668, 676, 66 Cal.Rptr. 229; ......