Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evidence Admissibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ventura County appeals board upholds exclusion of lender appraisal in Glasshouse Camarillo case
Summary
On Dec. 15, 2025 the Ventura County Assessment Appeals Board declined to reverse a prior decision and again refused to admit a lender/third‑party appraisal proffered by the assessor, citing the clerk‑of‑the‑board guidance and due‑process concerns raised by the applicant.
The Ventura County Assessment Appeals Board on Dec. 15, 2025 declined the assessor’s request to reconsider and admit an appraisal the assessor obtained and submitted in the GH Camarillo LLC (Glasshouse Brands) base‑year valuation appeal.
Chair Luneta told the parties the board had reviewed the assessor’s authorities but could not find “a definitive reason to reverse our previous decision,” and that the clerk‑of‑the‑board guidance requiring an appraiser release for lender or third‑party reports remained persuasive. The issue was first raised when the assessor asked the board to accept an appraisal that had been produced to the assessor under Revenue & Taxation Code section 441(d); the assessor argued the material was relevant and lawfully obtained. The applicant objected, arguing the report was prepared for accounting and lending purposes and that admitting it without the appraiser for cross‑examination would violate due process.
County counsel advised marking the precise excerpt read into the record as an exhibit so courts and counsel could review the exact material at issue. The assessor maintained the appraisal was obtained by the assessor lawfully and cited state statutory provisions and case law in support; the applicant’s attorney, Chris O’Neil, cited California Court of Appeal precedent emphasizing the right to cross‑examination in assessment hearings.
After a brief closed deliberation the board said it remained unable to overturn the hearing panel’s prior ruling excluding the appraisal and therefore sustained the previous exclusion for today’s decision making. The board accepted other exhibits entered by the assessor but left the contested lender appraisal excluded from the evidentiary record.
The board proceeded with the hearing on valuation matters and later set a post‑hearing schedule requiring the applicant to file proposed findings by Jan. 30, 2026 and the assessor to file its response and comments by March 16, 2026; the board will treat the matter as closed for decision on March 16 and the 180‑day decision clock will run thereafter.
The board’s ruling is procedural and narrow: it does not by itself resolve the base‑year valuation. The parties will exchange proposed findings and the board will deliberate further before issuing a written decision.
