Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Appeals Continuances Parent Child Exclusion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ventura County hearing postpones multiple assessment appeals; assessor says parent-to-child exclusion resolved earlier reassessments
Summary
The hearing officer continued several assessment appeals to June 30 or Aug. 18 with 30-day data provisos for some cases. In an extended exchange, assessor staff said appeals for 2014–2020 had been resolved by a parent-to-child exclusion, but deeds recorded in 2020 and 2023 created separate reassessments owners must appeal separately.
The Ventura County assessment hearing on Feb. 24 continued several pending appeals to later dates and clarified the scope of several resolved cases.
Hearing officer Sisk continued one conference (application 2410347, WM Holdings Incorporated) to June 30, 2025, pending receipt of an original stipulation. Multiple individual appeals were postponed to either June 30 or Aug. 18 with a common proviso from the assessor that any data requested by the assessor's office be provided within 30 days of the hearing date.
During an extended in-person appearance, an appellant identified as Peter Butcher described a complex history of deeds, a rescission deed, and multiple reassessments tied to his mother's death in 2012 and subsequent transactions. Assessor staff, represented by Joe Phillips, told Butcher that the reassessments tied to the 02/2012 date had been reversed after the filing of a parent-to-child exclusion form and therefore the appeals that covered 2014–2020 were resolved. Phillips and hearing staff explained, however, that deeds recorded in December 2020 and again in 2023 created separate reassessments that would have to be appealed separately; rescission deeds generally apply prospectively and do not retroactively erase reassessments unless specific statutory exceptions apply.
Butcher said he had paid tax bills in late 2023 that included amounts for 2021–2023 and that refunds he expected had not matched his calculations. Assessor staff advised Butcher to contact the property transfer division to clarify how recorded deeds were interpreted for change-in-ownership purposes and to consider filing late-validity appeals during the next filing window; staff noted a 60-day statutory appeal window and a separate multi-year late-filing period (the transcript references a July 2 through Sept. 15 filing window for the following four years). The assessor's office offered, as a courtesy, to keep the current appeals open to provide time for refunds to be issued and for Butcher to pursue additional appeals if he chose.
Formal actions recorded in the hearing included postponements with provisos, one recommended denial for lack of appearance, and administrative holds (trailing) where parties planned to return. The hearing officer confirmed the following outcomes in the record:
- Application 2410347 (WM Holdings Incorporated): continued to June 30, 2025, pending an original stipulation. - Applications 22-11605 through 22-11611 (Peter Butcher): continued to Aug. 18, 2025; assessor indicated no new information required because 2014–2020 issues were resolved but appellant may pursue 2021–2025 issues separately. - Application 23-10172 (Alejandro Osorio): continued to June 30, 2025, with a 30-day proviso for any assessor-requested data. - Application 23-11253 (Glenn Becerra): continued to June 30, 2025, with a 30-day proviso. - Application 23-11262 (Neil Siquet): recommended denied for lack of appearance. - Application 20-311840 (Daniella Tamayo): continued to June 30, 2025; assessor indicated no additional data required. - Application 23-11886 (Sunil Gratiot): continued to Aug. 18, 2025, with a 30-day proviso. - Application 24-10027 (Alisa Fitzgerald): trailed for brief presentation (no final continuance recorded in transcript). - Application 24-10160 (Jose Vasquez): continued to Aug. 18, 2025, with a 30-day proviso.
Assessor staff emphasized that a rescission deed generally takes effect prospectively on the date it is recorded and that separate appeals are required for reassessments triggered by subsequent recorded transfers. Staff recommended that property owners contact the Assessor's property transfer division to resolve transfer-document interpretation before pursuing appeals for the later reassessments. The hearing officer agreed to keep matters open where requested to allow appellants time to pursue refunds or file new appeals.
The hearing adjourned after completing the scheduled items and confirming continuances and denials on the record.
