Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Sale Rescission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Supervisors denies petition to rescind tax sale after contested hearing
Summary
After a full hearing, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors denied Quick Stop Markets’ petition to rescind a tax‑sale deed for 2285 E. Fremont, finding county staff had taken reasonable steps to notify owners; the petitioners’ attorney argued certified notices were misaddressed for years and strict notice requirements were not met.
Wally Smith, an attorney for Quick Stop Markets, told the Board of Supervisors that his client missed a single unsecured tax payment in 2018 but thereafter paid subsequent bills and had not received the certified notices that trigger a tax‑sale process. He said the tax collector repeatedly mailed certified notices to an incorrect address (a nonexistent “302 East 3rd Street” in Cincinnati) and that the county failed to use basic, reasonable efforts—such as checking its own unsecured roll or corporate filings—to locate the owner before proceeding to sale. “They discovered the wrong address in 2024 and still moved forward,” Smith said, urging the supervisors to rescind the deed and return the property to Quick Stop Markets.
Treasurer‑Tax Collector Fontee Calcum responded that county staff followed the Revenue and Taxation Code and the State Controller’s procedures for tax sales, including sending certified and first‑class notices to the mailing address on the secured roll, publishing required legal notices and hiring a title‑research consultant to locate parties of interest. Calcum told the board the county made multiple database searches and contacted the taxpayer’s payment agent directly before the sale.
Brett Jolley, counsel for purchaser Al Nagar LLC, said his client bought the property in good faith at the county tax sale, invested personal funds and later negotiated a lease with the operator; he argued that the record shows substantial and reasonable efforts by county staff to provide notice and that rescission would unfairly penalize a good‑faith purchaser. “The issue is whether county staff followed the law, not the size of the parties,” Jolley told supervisors.
County counsel and deputy counsel summarized the legal standard the board must apply: the supervisors may rescind a sale by agreement of the purchaser or, in contested cases, only if the board finds a legal defect in how the sale was conducted under the Revenue and Taxation Code. After hearing public comment and rebuttal, the Board voted 5–0 to deny the petition to rescind the tax deed.
What happens next: the denial affirms the tax sale record for now; the petitioners retain the right to seek judicial review within statutory timelines. County staff said excess proceeds and statutory steps tied to the tax sale remain governed by the code and that parties may pursue claims in court if they choose.
