Ventura County assessment appeals board accepts late-filed appeal from Amelia Rapp

The Ventura County Assessment Appeals Board voted Wednesday to accept an appeal from Amelia L. Rapp that the county clerk had initially rejected as untimely.

Clerk of the Board staff told the panel the supplemental assessment that triggered the appeal was mailed June 19, 2023, to the successor trustee, Lawrence D. Powell, at the property address, and that the appeal application was not filed until May 28, 2024 — 284 days after the 60‑day deadline. The clerk’s office recommended the board decide whether to accept the late application.

The board agreed to accept Rapp’s filing and move the matter forward. Brandon Bridal, a clerk of the board staff member, summarized the procedural issue: the supplemental reassessment notice and subsequent tax bill were addressed to the trust and to the trustee rather than to Rapp, who had a deed recorded earlier. Bridal told the board the clerk’s office had concluded that, because the notices were correctly addressed to the successor trustee, the statutory appeal period ordinarily would not extend to a subsequent owner absent additional showing.

Rapp told the board she had submitted a claim for reassessment exclusion at the time of the deed transfer in 2022 but said she did not receive the supplemental notice because mail had been routed to the trustee in Utah and the trustee did not pass the notice along. Rapp also told the board she did not live at the property at the time and requested future hearing access by Zoom because she lives out of state.

The board’s acceptance of the application does not resolve the underlying legal questions. The clerk’s presentation said the next step is a merits hearing at which the assessor will be asked to explain whether the county received the reassessment‑exclusion claim form and whether the form used at the time complied with the new rules that followed Proposition 19. The clerk referenced California Property Tax Rule 305(D)(4) and an identified provision of the Revenue and Taxation Code in describing the 60‑day deadlines.

Assistant county staff and the applicant acknowledged the case may return for briefing on constitutional and statutory deadlines under the new law. Board members said accepting the filing for today’s procedural purpose would allow the parties to litigate the substantive question — including whether the claimant used the correct Board of Equalization form and whether the assessor had actual notice — rather than leave the matter closed for procedural reasons.

The board voted to accept the application; no roll‑call votes were recorded on the audio for this motion. The clerk’s office will notify the parties of the next steps and any calendar date for the merits hearing.

For now, Rapp’s appeal remains on the board’s docket for further proceedings on the substance of whether reassessment and exclusion rules were properly applied in this matter.