Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A company serving as the project administrator for several partially income-restricted apartment complexes operated with the aim of providing affordable housing for middle-income tenants maintained constructive possession and control over the properties, which are owned by a local Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and thus exempt from ad valorem property taxation under the California Constitution. The company received significant fees and bond revenues from its administration of the complexes. The county assessor determined that the company’s exclusive control and financial benefits met the statutory criteria for a taxable “possessory interest,” and assessed property taxes accordingly. The company initially contested the tax assessments before the Orange County Assessment Appeals Board but filed a separate action for declaratory relief in superior court before the administrative proceedings concluded, seeking a declaration that neither it nor its tenants were liable for these taxes.The Superior Court of Orange County denied the county’s special motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), finding that the company’s declaratory relief claim did not arise from the county assessor’s protected activity under the statute’s first prong. The court did not reach the question of whether the company could show a likelihood of success on the merits under the statute’s second prong.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, conducted a de novo review and held that the claim for declaratory relief did arise from the assessor’s protected speech, petitioning, and advocacy activities under section 425.16. The appellate court reversed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion and remanded the matter with instructions for the trial court to determine whether the company can demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP statute. View "Waterford Property Co. v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

A business in Connecticut was assessed personal property taxes from 2008 to 2016. The defendant, who had moved to California years earlier and claimed to have left the business by 2007, was never notified of these tax assessments at her California address, despite having provided it to the tax collector in 2011 and 2016. Over the years, the city’s tax collector took funds from the defendant’s bank accounts multiple times via bank executions to satisfy the tax debt, without ever sending her a tax bill or notice at her actual residence.In 2021, the tax collector initiated another bank execution against the defendant. The defendant challenged this action, arguing she had not received due process or required statutory notice. The Superior Court for the judicial district of Litchfield held an evidentiary hearing and agreed with the defendant, finding the tax collector failed to provide required notice under General Statutes § 12-155 (a) and that the lack of notice deprived her of the opportunity to challenge the tax assessment. The court granted the defendant’s exemption motion, rendering the execution “of no effect.” The tax collector initially appealed but then withdrew the appeal. After sending a written demand to the defendant’s California address, the tax collector initiated a new bank execution, again without providing a new tax bill or an opportunity to challenge it.The trial court found the new action was a collateral attack on the earlier judgment and barred by collateral estoppel. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding the issue of notice and opportunity to challenge had been actually litigated and necessarily determined in the 2021 action.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment. It held that, under Connecticut law, collateral estoppel applies to all independent, alternative grounds actually litigated and determined in a prior judgment, making them preclusive in subsequent actions. Thus, the tax collector was barred from relitigating the notice and due process issues already decided. The Court declined to recognize a public policy exception for municipal tax collection cases. View "Torrington Tax Collector, LLC v. Riley" on Justia Law

A municipal tax collector initiated a bank execution action against an individual to collect unpaid personal property taxes owed by a business with which the individual was previously associated. The individual had moved to California years earlier and claimed that she never received notice of the tax debt or an opportunity to contest it, despite providing her new address to the tax collector. Previous bank executions had been initiated, but the individual continued to assert lack of notice. In the 2021 action, the trial court found that the tax collector failed to comply with statutory notice requirements and that the individual had not been afforded due process, leading the court to grant her exemption from the execution.Following the 2021 judgment, the tax collector withdrew its appeal and attempted a new bank execution after sending written demand to the individual's California address, but did not provide a new tax bill or opportunity to challenge it. The individual again moved for exemption. The Superior Court concluded that the new execution was a collateral attack on the previous judgment and was barred by doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Appellate Court affirmed, finding that the issue of notice and opportunity to challenge the tax debt had been actually litigated and necessarily determined in the prior action.Upon review, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that collateral estoppel barred the municipal tax collector from relitigating whether it could execute on the individual's funds without first providing adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge the underlying tax debt. The Court determined that both independent, alternative grounds supporting the earlier judgment were entitled to preclusive effect and declined to create a public policy exception for municipal tax collection actions. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court. View "Torrington Tax Collector, LLC v. Riley" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are trustees who own a property in Kīhei, Maui, which they use as a vacation home for personal use. In 2021, Maui County reclassified their property as a “short-term rental” based solely on zoning, not actual use, resulting in a higher property tax rate. The plaintiffs paid the assessed taxes but did not utilize the administrative appeals process available through the Maui County Board of Review. Instead, they filed a class action in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, seeking a refund and alleging that the County’s collection of the higher taxes was unconstitutional, violated due process, and resulted in unjust enrichment.The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit granted the County’s motion to dismiss, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes chapter 232 and Maui County Code chapter 3.48, the proper procedure for contesting real property tax assessments—including constitutional challenges—requires first appealing to the County Board of Review and, if necessary, then to the Tax Appeal Court. Because the plaintiffs bypassed these required steps and missed the statutory deadline to appeal, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the Tax Appeal Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals regarding real property tax assessments, including those raising constitutional issues, and found that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred due to their failure to timely pursue the established administrative remedies. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Piezko v. County of Maui" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the ad valorem tax assessments for a low-income-housing property purchased in 2019 by Southampton 100, LLC. Dissatisfied with the Jefferson County Tax Assessor's valuations for several tax years, Southampton sought adjustments from the Jefferson County Board of Equalization and Adjustments. While the Board reduced some assessments, Southampton remained dissatisfied and filed separate appeals for each tax year. These appeals were consolidated in the Jefferson Circuit Court, where the Alabama Department of Revenue (ADOR) became the appellee.As the consolidated appeal progressed, the parties encountered repeated discovery disputes. ADOR filed multiple motions for sanctions, culminating in a request to depose Southampton’s second corporate representative, who resided in California, in person in Alabama. Southampton argued that requiring travel was unduly burdensome, offering instead to make this representative available via Zoom or for an in-person deposition immediately before trial. However, Southampton never sought a formal protective order. ADOR persisted and, after additional scheduling complications and denied motions, requested dismissal of the appeal as a sanction for alleged noncompliance. The Jefferson Circuit Court granted this request and dismissed Southampton’s appeal with prejudice, without a hearing or explanation.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case, applying the standard of whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in imposing sanctions. The Court held that dismissal with prejudice is a severe sanction that requires a showing of willful and deliberate disregard for discovery obligations. The record did not support a finding that Southampton acted willfully or intentionally to prevent discovery. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Southampton 100, LLC v. Alabama Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

A corporation owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe, along with several tribal officials, was alleged by the State of California to have violated state cigarette tax laws and regulations. The corporation manufactured and distributed cigarettes in California, including to non-tribal consumers, without collecting or remitting required state excise taxes or payments under the Master Settlement Agreement. California claimed that the corporation and its officials distributed contraband cigarettes not listed on the state’s approved directory and failed to comply with shipping, recordkeeping, and tax collection requirements under the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act). Despite warnings and being placed on a federal non-compliance list, the corporation continued its operations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the corporation, as an arm of the tribe, was shielded by tribal sovereign immunity and dismissed claims against it. However, the court allowed claims for injunctive relief against the individual tribal officials in their official capacities to proceed, holding that the Ex parte Young doctrine permitted such relief under the PACT Act. The court also denied the officials’ claims of qualified immunity for personal capacity claims, reasoning that qualified immunity did not apply to enforcement actions brought by a state under a federal statute.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that the PACT Act does not preclude Ex parte Young actions for prospective injunctive relief against tribal officials, as the Act does not limit who may be sued or the types of relief available, nor does it contain a sufficiently detailed remedial scheme to displace Ex parte Young. The court also held that qualified immunity does not shield tribal officials from California’s claims for civil penalties and money damages under the PACT Act. View "STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. DEL ROSA" on Justia Law

A company acquired a tax title to certain immovable property in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, after the original owners failed to pay property taxes. Following the expiration of the redemptive period, the company mailed post-tax sale notice to the executrix of the former owner’s succession at the address listed in the succession proceedings. The company then filed a petition to quiet title, and the executrix was personally served. In response, she filed a reconventional demand seeking to annul the tax sale, alleging she had not received adequate pre-tax and post-tax sale notice. The City, which had previously held a small interest in the property, was also named as a third-party defendant.The 16th Judicial District Court sustained exceptions of prescription raised by the company and the City, dismissing the executrix’s claims as untimely. On appeal, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed, finding the reconventional demand was timely because it was filed within six months of service of the petition to quiet title, as required by La. R.S. 47:2266. The appellate court also held that the failure to provide pre-tax sale notice could render the tax sale absolutely null, and that the company and the City bore the burden of proving the reconventional demand was prescribed.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and held that, following the 2008 revision to Louisiana’s tax sale statutes, failure to provide pre-tax sale notice for tax sales occurring after January 1, 2009, no longer results in an absolute nullity. Instead, such defects are relative nullities, subject to specific prescriptive periods under La. R.S. 47:2287. The Court further held that a nullity action brought as a reconventional demand in a quiet title action must also comply with the six-month limitation in La. R.S. 47:2266. The Court affirmed the appellate ruling regarding prescription but reversed on the issue of absolute nullity, remanding for further proceedings. View "BELAIRE DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, LLC VS. SUCCESSION OF SHELTON" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a taxpayer, received a notice of deficiency from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding her 2022 tax return. The IRS determined that she was not entitled to certain tax credits and imposed penalties. The notice, dated May 30, 2023, was sent to her former address, and she did not become aware of it until after the deadline to contest the deficiency had passed. She filed a petition for redetermination with the United States Tax Court on November 1, 2023, well after the ninety-day deadline specified in the Internal Revenue Code. In her petition, she argued that she was entitled to the disputed credits and status, and requested equitable tolling of the filing deadline due to her lack of timely notice.The United States Tax Court dismissed her petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the ninety-day deadline in I.R.C. § 6213(a) was a strict jurisdictional requirement that could not be extended or tolled, regardless of the circumstances. The court relied on prior Sixth Circuit precedent that had characterized the deadline as jurisdictional and rejected the petitioner’s arguments for equitable tolling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the Tax Court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that, in light of recent Supreme Court guidance, the ninety-day deadline in § 6213(a) is not a jurisdictional rule but rather a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule. As such, it is presumptively subject to equitable tolling. The court reversed the Tax Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for the Tax Court to consider, in the first instance, whether the petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline based on the specific facts of her case. View "Oquendo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of the annual fee charged for separate property tax assessments. The owners argued that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the assessment, constituting a tax requiring voter approval, which had not been obtained.The Superior Court of Riverside County rejected the owners' argument and entered judgment for the County. The court ruled that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of the assessment and was not a tax requiring voter approval. The court also considered additional costs not included in the original fee calculation, such as costs related to assessment appeals and a new computer system.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed. The County had used the assessor's entire budget for a previous fiscal year to calculate the fee, which included costs unrelated to the separate timeshare assessments. The court also noted that the County had not provided evidence of the actual cost of the separate assessments and had improperly included costs for services provided to all property owners.The Court of Appeal concluded that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the fee was not a tax. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to address the owners' requests for declaratory, injunctive, and writ relief. The court emphasized that the fee must be limited to the reasonable cost of the separate assessments and must bear a fair relationship to the benefits received by the timeshare estate owners. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

Adam Steele and Krystal Comer, tax return preparers, challenged the IRS's requirement to obtain or renew a Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) by completing Form W-12, which involves paying a fee and disclosing personal information. They initially joined a class action in 2014 contesting the IRS's authority to impose these fees and the amount of information required by Form W-12. However, class counsel later withdrew these claims. Steele and Comer then attempted to revive these claims in a separate lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed their complaint, citing the rule against claim-splitting, which prevents duplicative litigation between the same parties asserting the same claims, even without a final judgment in the first case. The district court found that Steele and Comer had already raised and then withdrawn these claims in the ongoing class action and were denied leave to amend the complaint to reassert them.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) does not bar judicial review of the IRS's authority to demand information through Form W-12, but the rule against claim-splitting still precludes the plaintiffs' suit. The court emphasized that claim-splitting bars duplicative litigation filed before final judgment and that Steele and Comer had a fair opportunity to litigate their claims in the earlier class action. The court concluded that the district court's dismissal was proper to prevent strategic end runs around procedural rulings and to preserve the integrity of the adjudicative process. View "Steele v. United States" on Justia Law