The Assessment Appeals Board meeting held on April 17, 2025, in Ventura County, California, focused on a significant case involving property ownership and the legal implications of deed presumption. The meeting began with an overview of the bare legal exclusion, which allows individuals to contest ownership claims based on the names listed on property deeds.
The board discussed the case of applicant Jose Guadalupe Reveles, who argued that a change in ownership recorded on April 8, 2005, was incorrect. Reveles claimed he has maintained ownership of the property since August 21, 1989, despite the recorded deeds indicating otherwise. He asserted that all names appearing on the deeds from 1989 to February 2005 had no beneficial ownership of the property and that he has been the sole resident since 1989.
Before you scroll further...
Get access to the words and decisions of your elected officials for free!
Subscribe for Free The discussion highlighted the legal framework surrounding property ownership, particularly Property Tax Rule 462.200(b), which establishes a rebuttable presumption that all individuals listed on a deed have ownership interests unless proven otherwise. To overcome this presumption, the applicant must provide clear and convincing evidence, which may include written agreements, tax returns, and other documentation.
The board emphasized the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support the claim of bare legal exclusion. This includes demonstrating that any additional names on the deed were not intended to reflect ownership interests. The applicant was advised that if the evidence presented was insufficient, he could rescind the 2005 transaction, which would revert the property to its previous ownership status without providing tax relief for the period during which the deed transfer was treated as a change in ownership.
The meeting concluded with the board outlining the necessary documentation required to support the appeal and the implications of the findings for property tax assessments moving forward. The case remains under review as the board considers the evidence presented by the applicant.