Board of Supervisors v. Lonergan

Board of Supervisors v. Lonergan

Opinion

 [*857]  [**803]  [***821]    In Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208 [149 Cal. Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281] (hereinafter [****2]  Amador), we upheld the validity of article XIII A of the California Constitution against multiple constitutional challenges. Adopted in June 1978 as an initiative measure designated and popularly known as Proposition 13, article XIII A significantly altered the system of real property taxation in this state.

In considering the substantial attacks mounted against the measure, we restricted our inquiry to the "principal, fundamental challenges to the validity of article XIII A as a whole." ( Id. at p. 219.) Thus we expressly acknowledged the enactment was not wholly free from uncertainties, but reserved judgment as to their proper resolution: "'Analysis  [*858]  of the problems which may arise respecting the interpretation or application of particular provisions of the act should be deferred for future cases in which those provisions are more directly challenged.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.) CA(1a)(1a)  We have before us such a case, and the question presented is whether the real property tax rate and valuation limitations mandated by article XIII A are applicable to property taxed on the unsecured portion of the assessment roll for the tax year 1978-1979.

 [****3]  Shortly after Proposition 13 was adopted, the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County (board) filed this action seeking a writ of mandate and declaratory and injunctive relief against Gerald J. Lonergan, the San Diego County Auditor and Controller (auditor), and James E. Jones, the San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector (tax collector). Alleging that a genuine controversy existed as to whether taxes assessed on the unsecured roll are within the coverage of article XIII A, the board sought to compel the auditor and tax collector to compute, bill, and collect taxes in accordance with the limitations set forth in the new constitutional provision. The court issued declaratory relief and held that the auditor and tax collector were required to comply with article XIII A in taxing property on the unsecured roll. ¹ The auditor appeals. As will appear, we conclude that Proposition 13, when adopted, was not intended to apply to the 1978-1979 unsecured roll. Accordingly, the judgment granting declaratory relief is reversed.

 [****4]   I

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.