Molmen

Bishop, McIntosh & McIntosh v. Molmen

Good Law
116 Cal. App. 3d 278·172 Cal. Rptr. 38·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1447
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 1981Civ. No. 46419California1,794 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Grodin, J.

The Revenue and Taxation Code provides, in section 5096, subdivision (b) that on order of a county’s board of supervisors, property taxes which have been “[erroneously or illegally collected” are to be refunded. Section 5097 provides, however, that “(a) No order for a refund .. . shall be made, except on a claim: ... (2) Filed within four years after making of the payment sought to be refunded or within one year after the mailing of notice as prescribed in Section 2635, whichever is later.” Section 2635 provides that “The tax collector shall give notice by letter to the taxpayer . . . where his records show that, with respect to particular property, taxes might have been: ... (b) Erroneously or illegally collected.” The question presented here is whether a taxpayer who claims that the assessed value of his property should have been lower for certain years because it was subject to a scenic easement, but who has pursued no remedies within the four-year limitation period, is entitled to a writ of mandate compelling the tax collector to send a section 2635 letter in order to renew his right to file a claim. The trial court entered judgment denying the writ, and we…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.