Assessment appeals board hears Ojai ownership dispute over a 2022 deed transfer; board schedules possible valuation hearing

The Ventura County Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 on Aug. 4, 2025 heard a contested appeal from John and Petri Williams over a supplemental assessment triggered by a May 24, 2022 recorded deed that transferred title to the couple. The Williamses told the board the recorded transfers reflected a refinance to remove a lender, not a sale, and asked the board to restore the property’s base-year value from 2017.

The Williamses presented a signed short-term loan agreement and sworn declarations saying the property was bought and paid for by the couple and that Elizabeth L. George acted only as a financier. John Williams told the board the parties’ written agreement anticipated title would initially be in George’s name so she could secure financing and that title would be transferred to the Williamses once they refinanced: “The transaction was not a purchase or a sale,” Williams said, summarizing the documentation the couple provided.

The assessor’s office, represented by appraisers in the hearing, said its initial reassessment followed the recorded deeds and the statutory “deed presumption,” under which names on recorded deeds create a rebuttable presumption of ownership. Assessor staff cited property tax rule 4.62.200(b), related Board of Equalization guidance and a Ventura County Superior Court judgment (case number 56-2019-00535384-CU-BC-BT A) that had addressed ownership for the parcel in earlier litigation. “According to property tax laws, the recorded deeds are assumed to be accurate,’’ the assessor told the board during its presentation.

Board members discussed the legal standard: overturning the deed presumption requires clear and convincing evidence, and the statute and board guidance name the best evidence as a judicial adjudication, though declarations and corroborating documents (tax returns, canceled checks, insurance policies, bank records) are also noted as supportive evidence. The Williamses provided a signed loan agreement predating the conveyance, sworn declarations from both sides, and tax and payment records; the assessor said it had collected court records and other documents and considered the superior court ownership finding dispositive.

The board voted to allow the applicants to amend their appeal to include a valuation review for 05/24/2022 if the board upholds the assessor’s change-in-ownership determination. The board also set a contingent date for a valuation hearing on Dec. 8, 2025, if that second issue is necessary, and added a 30-day data proviso (any additional evidence for valuation must be supplied to the assessor at least 30 days before the hearing). The board did not make a final determination on the change-in-ownership question at the Aug. 4 meeting; members said they would deliberate on the record and return a written decision.

Why it matters: If the board sustains the assessor’s 2022 reassessment, the Williamses face higher assessed value and supplemental tax liability; if the board finds the transfer was excluded (a refinancing to remove a lender or a resulting trust), the property’s base-year value could be restored. The hearing included sworn statements, a written short-term loan agreement the Williamses say created a trust/fiduciary relationship, and a contested superior-court record that the assessor said is binding for ownership determinations.

Next steps: The board will issue a written decision after deliberation. If the board upholds the assessor’s 2022 change-in-ownership finding, it will proceed to the separate valuation hearing on Dec. 8, 2025 (applicant and assessor to exchange additional valuation materials at least 30 days beforehand).