Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Change In Ownership topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing officer upholds partial reassessment after transfer into living trust
Summary
A Ventura County appeals hearing upheld a partial reassessment after a recorded deed transferred minority interests into a trust on Feb. 22, 2022. The hearing officer found the assessor met the statutory definition of a change in ownership and denied the applicant's request to overturn the reassessment.
A Ventura County hearing officer on Feb. 23, 2026, upheld a partial reassessment after a recorded deed conveyed minority interests in a home into a living trust, finding the assessor met the statutory elements of a change in ownership.
Hearing Officer Cohen said the transfer recorded Feb. 22, 2022, satisfied Revenue and Taxation Code section 60 because two co‑owners “fully divested themselves of their ownership interest,” and the assessor correctly limited reassessment to the percentage interest that changed hands. The assessor asked the board to “uphold the partial reassessment” and cited the recorded deed showing the transfer to “Laura Reynolds Cox as trustee of the Laura Reynolds Cox Living Trust.”
Applicant Laura Cox told the hearing she has been “the continuous and sole owner and occupant of this home since 1989” and said the 2022 filing was a title correction to place the property into a trust for estate planning, not a substantive transfer that should trigger reassessment. Cox said she added her daughters’ names to title decades earlier as a guardianship measure and argued no change of beneficial ownership had occurred in substance.
The assessor countered that the daughters each transferred their entire 9.2% interest and retained no beneficial interest at the time of the deed; staff also said the parent‑to‑child exclusion under Proposition 19 did not apply because the daughters did not occupy the property as principal residences at the time of transfer.
After hearing questions and closing arguments from both sides, the hearing officer said the presumption supporting the recorded deed had not been overcome and ruled that “the assessment is correct, and it shall stand.” The officer explained that the deed and the recorded percentage interests created a presumption that the assessor’s records were correct and that the applicant had not presented sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption.
The decision concludes the hearing officer’s determination at the hearing level; the clerk noted options for legal counsel and potential post‑hearing remedies if the applicant wishes to pursue further legal advice. The clerk and assessor agreed to provide written confirmation of the board’s outcome to the parties.
