Homeowner challenges reassessments after friend briefly added to title; Board hears weeks-long testimony

The Ventura County Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 heard multi‑hour testimony April 6 from homeowner Lori Ann Lemaire, who asked the board to overturn reassessments that followed a series of title transfers in 2021 and 2024.

Lemaire testified she and her sister bought their home in 2003 and that when her sister left the house in 2021 a friend, J.D. Silvestri, provided $300,000 so Lemaire could stay in the property. Lemaire said Silvestri was placed on title to facilitate financing but “he never received any benefit” and “never lived there,” and that the final outcome was that she became sole occupant and payer of taxes. “It was my house all along. It’s me that pays everything for it,” Lemaire said in testimony.

The assessor’s team, represented by Joe Phillips and appraiser Rebecca Jeffreys, argued the recorded deeds create a legal presumption that parties listed on title held beneficial interests unless rebutted by clear and convincing, contemporaneous documentation. Phillips said the record contains evidence of monetary contribution and statements that characterize the March–July 2021 transactions as purchases, which “is a key indicator of beneficial ownership.” The assessor’s office concluded that the transfers constituted changes in ownership to the extent reflected on the deeds and therefore were subject to reassessment.

Board members and counsel questioned both sides about documentary support. The assessor noted the applicant had provided affidavits, tax returns and escrow records; the assessor said those materials did not amount to the contemporaneous written agreement the rules require to rebut the deed presumption. The applicant’s agent countered that financial records and escrow statements show the transaction’s economic reality and urged the board to account for the practical outcome—that Lemaire remained the occupant and sole payer of property costs.

After testimony and cross‑examination, the board agreed to amend the appeal to include a March 26, 2021 transfer date that Lemaire said reflected when she first sought to buy out her sister. The board scheduled the valuation phase — the next step if the board finds a change in ownership — for May 18, 2026, and ordered a 30‑day data proviso requiring any additional supporting information be provided to the assessor at least 30 days before that date. The board took the legal question of change in ownership under advisement for later deliberation and said written findings of fact would follow.

What happened next: The board said it would issue written findings explaining its legal analysis; if the board upholds reassessments, a separate valuation hearing will determine the enrolled values for the dates in question. Lemaire told the board she would evaluate the assessor’s valuation and either accept or pursue the valuation hearing.

Why it matters: The hearing turned on how the county treats recorded title transfers when a party is added to facilitate financing. Under Property Tax Rule 62.200 and Revenue & Taxation Code provisions, the recorded deed creates a rebuttable presumption of ownership; overcoming it requires clear and convincing contemporaneous documentation. The board’s decision will affect whether Lemaire keeps the property’s factored base‑year value or has a portion of the property reassessed.

Next procedural step: The board will deliberate and issue findings of fact; the valuation portion is scheduled for May 18, 2026 (30‑day data proviso).