Thousand Oaks homeowner presents evidence in base‑year appeal; board takes case under submission

The Ventura County Assessment Appeals Board heard oral testimony and documentary evidence in application 23‑11363, a base‑year appeal filed by homeowner Daryl Malamute challenging the enrollment of the Oct. 10, 2022 purchase price as the property’s base‑year value.

What the applicant said: Malamute described family and health reasons that prompted a quick move back to the community and said he felt pressured during escrow. He presented a detailed market comparison grid and contractor estimates to support an opinion that the property’s full cash value on the valuation date was substantially lower than the recorded sale price of $3,260,000. Malamute highlighted what he described as condition issues (original 1987 systems and finishes, nonfunctional fireplaces, and a roof and HVAC nearing replacement) and provided contractor quotes and a local broker’s letter to quantify repair and upgrade costs. He also argued that one comparable sale used by the assessor closed about a year earlier, when mortgage interest rates were lower, and asked for a time adjustment or removal of that comparable.

What the assessor said: Assessor representatives reviewed the transaction timeline and relevant documents (purchase and sale agreement, inspection report, lender appraisal and escrow records). The assessor’s appraiser explained the office’s reliance on Property Tax Rule 2: when a property is transferred for consideration, the purchase price is rebuttably presumed to be full cash value unless the seller or buyer proves otherwise by a preponderance of evidence. The assessor’s presentation included a direct sales comparison using five comparables within roughly 0.5 mile of the subject; the assessor concluded the comparable‑based range did not justify a reduction greater than the 5% threshold that would be required to overcome Rule 2, and therefore the office recommended the enrolled sales price be upheld.

Board action: After hearing both sides and asking clarifying questions about square footage, a below‑grade area the assessor treated as living area, fireplace replacement estimates, and the timing/time‑adjustment issue, the board took the matter under submission for closed‑door deliberations. No final decision was recorded in the public excerpt; the board directed parties to provide outstanding data per any outstanding provisos and indicated a written decision will follow.

Why it matters: The hearing turned on two legal pathways recognized by Property Tax Rule 2 — either (a) evidence that the transfer was not an open‑market, arm’s‑length transaction because of exigent circumstances, or (b) evidence that comparable market data supports a value more than 5% different from the purchase price. The assessor argued neither path was met; the applicant maintained his evidence showed a significant deviation when adjusted for condition and market timing.

Clarifying procedural points - The applicant requested written findings of fact. - The assessor reported that a bank‑ordered appraisal for financing had treated the below‑grade area as additional living area in its square footage; assessor staff explained their on‑site inspection supported counting that area in total living square footage for valuation purposes. The applicant disputed that treatment and highlighted differences in typical appraisal and ANSI/measurement practices for below‑grade spaces. - The board heard extended testimony and documentary exhibits from both sides, including contractor bids, listing and MLS photos, the bank appraisal, and inspection reports.

Next steps: The board will deliberate in closed session and issue a written decision. Parties may receive instructions to submit any remaining supporting documents within the board’s deadlines.