Fresno County Board denies request to rescind June tax-sale of 3718 E. Washington

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 9 rejected a petition to rescind the June 13, 2025 tax sale of property at 3718 East Washington in Supervisorial District 3.

The board’s decision follows a lengthy staff presentation from the county treasurer-tax collector’s office and public testimony from Tina A. Lopez, who said the house had been her family home for 47 years and that she and heirs were unable to complete probate and sale arrangements before the property sold. Lopez told the board she faces homelessness and described efforts to complete probate and sell the property before the auction.

Oscar Garcia, Fresno County treasurer-tax collector, and staff provided a timeline showing an earlier postponement had been granted for the parcel, that required notices were mailed and posted again under California Revenue and Taxation Code procedures, and that the tax sale occurred after the statutory postponement period. Staff said the postponement was granted under Rev. & Tax. Code §3706.1 to allow a sale to close and taxes to be paid from proceeds, but the sale was completed after the requester failed to finalize the sale within the postponement period.

Staff summarized the four legal findings the board must make to rescind a sale: (1) that the property should not have been sold, (2) that the property was not transferred to a bona fide purchaser for value, (3) that the property did not become subject to a bona fide purchaser, and (4) that the purchaser received required notice of the hearing. Staff recommended the board could not make the first finding because the parcel was not timely redeemed, there was no bankruptcy to bar sale, and statutory notices were provided.

Attorney Trevor D. Martin submitted the petition on behalf of Lopez. Lopez and her counsel argued probate delays and the timing of the court’s signing of probate orders contributed to the family’s inability to finalize the sale. Lopez also questioned whether the posted notices were visible and whether photo evidence submitted by staff established that the notice had been placed on the residence.

Attorney Lance Armone, representing the purchaser, told the board there were alternative legal remedies Lopez could pursue and that his client had paid more than the minimum bid. Board members discussed the one-year statutory period for claims to excess proceeds after a deed is recorded; county counsel and staff said the one-year claim window begins when the deed is recorded (the staff said the deed was recorded in June), and that claims for excess proceeds are processed after that window closes.

Supervisor motioned to deny the petition; the board voted to deny the petition to rescind the sale. The motion carried and staff will proceed under existing procedures for claims to excess proceeds and related next steps.

Ending: The board did not order the sale rescinded. County staff and counsel advised Lopez on available claims procedures and the statutory timeline for excess-proceeds claims.