In the first sentence of the opinion, Justice Feuer describes it as a "cautionary tale" and mentions the result as potentially "unfair" (i.e., "Unfair as it may seem . . . .). But to tell you the truth, nothing at all about this strikes me as unfair at all, and I'm super glad the case come out this way.
A company buys a shopping mall for $100 million. The Los Angeles County assessor's office later values the property for tax purposes at $94 million. The company thinks it's worth less, so files an appeal, and submits a lowball estimate saying that the shopping mall's only worth $48 million. The assessor's office conducts an investigation and prepares an appraisal report demonstrating that the property's actually worth $126 million, so includes that appraisal and lets the company know that at the appeal, it's going to say that the property's value is $112 million -- $14 million less than the property is actually worth, but more than the assessor's initial $94 million valuation. The assessor also sends the company three different letters that say that at the hearing, they're going to shoot for $112 million -- i.e., to tax the property at $14 million less than it's actually worth, but still more than what the assessor initially thought the property was worth.
At which point the company say: "Whoa, Nelly. Forget it. I'm fine with the original $94 million figure. Cancel the hearing." But the assessor's office says: "Nope. You made us do all this work. We now know your property's worth $112 million -- actually, $126 million, but we're being totally nice to you -- so that's what we're going to tax it on. Sorry." And at the hearing, the Board adopts the $112 million figure as an accurate valuation of the property.
That's totally and completely 100% fine with me. I see nothing whatsoever "unfair" about it, either as a facial matter or as matter of statutory interpretation. As Justice Feuer's opinion correctly holds, the rules t issue say that the assessor can "introduce new evidence of full cash value of a parcel of property at the hearing" with the sole caveat that if that full cash value is "a higher assessed value than he placed on the roll, he shall, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, inform the applicant of the higher assessed value and the evidence proposed to be introduced and he may thereafter introduce such evidence at the hearing." The LA assessor did that here. Repeatedly.
I'm more than fine with that. That rule's no different than in regular criminal or civil appeals. If you file an appeal, and the other side lets you know that they're filing a cross-appeal to do you even dirtier than what the trial court did, you can't just withdraw your own appeal and go back to where things were before.
You pays yer money and you takes yer chances. Nothing wrong about that at all.
